Which UV filter?

I've always used the Hoya Pro-1 D series or the Kenko version which is the exactly the same but rebranded.
 
Probably B+W Filters but they're not cheap. You'll be talking the wrong side of 50 quid for one of them. Is it for protecting the front lens element?

I'm having a change of heart about using UV/Skylight filters to protect the front element. If you buy a cheap filter, it's going to affect the image quality (by how much, I've not tested yet) and if you buy an expensive filter then you may as well not bother as a replacement front lens is probably cheaper than an expensive filter.

Case in point, my old Bigma had an EXPENSIVE B+W UV filter which was damaged and as a result also marked the front lens element. So that was over 100 quid of UV filter down the tubes plus a new lens which cost 50 quid. I'm not going to bother with UV filters in the future.
 
This is why I don't bother - the figures just don't add up. (and due to the measurable degradation off course)

All the decent glass in a lens (SLD, ED, nano) is in the lens, not at the front - replacing a front element is very cheap (£28 for a classic 28mm Nikkor f/2.8 for example), and about £50 for 77mm (Nikon / Sigma).

Yet the snake oil "protection" racket still persists.
 
Hi. A UV does help with glare when the subject is over flowing with UV light, seen at higher altitudes, snow etc etc. Multicoated versions are always the better filter in that it helps restrict reflections.
With polarisers, if you are using autofocus though the lens then a "circular" polariser is favourite (not the shape but the type) as it does not interfere with "through the lens" auto focus systems etc.
 
Would a CP do a similar job that a UV would? Is there an example as to when you would want a UV instead of a CP for outdoor shooting?

I thought a UV was a good idea just as lens protection, but have quickly come to realize that it certainly can affect images, especially with wide apertures and bright lights at night - I got some reciprocal ghosting of lights in quite a few shots. I am definitely now in the "no UV filter for protection" camp and will just try to be more careful with my lenses. Especially after reading here that replacing the front element of glass can be more economical. I think I will stick with CPs and ND filters as needed and put the money saved on UV filters towards those instead. Especially when looking at 72mm + filter sizes - filters aren't cheap!
 
LiMPiNg said:
Would a CP do a similar job that a UV would? Is there an example as to when you would want a UV instead of a CP for outdoor shooting?

I thought a UV was a good idea just as lens protection, but have quickly come to realize that it certainly can affect images, especially with wide apertures and bright lights at night - I got some reciprocal ghosting of lights in quite a few shots. I am definitely now in the "no UV filter for protection" camp and will just try to be more careful with my lenses. Especially after reading here that replacing the front element of glass can be more economical. I think I will stick with CPs and ND filters as needed and put the money saved on UV filters towards those instead. Especially when looking at 72mm + filter sizes - filters aren't cheap!
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single example where a UV filter would make any noticeable difference. UV and polarisers are completely different. A UV does nothing to the image, as hardly any UV gets through a modern multi-element lens and anything that does gets soaked up by the filtering over the sensor. Complete waste of time from that point of view.

A polariser on the other hand, will improve a lot of pictures. There is always some polarised light about, especially on clear sunny days. At these times a polariser will make a blue sky much darker, and by killing reflections that are polarised by most things, colour and contrast is significantly boosted.

I leave a polariser on a lot of the time - semi-permanently. It improves a lot of pictures, and does no hard to most others. The only times I think about taking it off is for pictures of people when the polariser kills reflections on their skin which sometimes doesn't look right, and reflections on water often look better in than out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top