Whoa! Reconsidering use of UV filters...

AtitG · 06-10-2016, 10:17 PM - **1 Like**

i use a hood and a filter and leave the lens cap at home. The filter allows me to wipe the lens with a lens cloth, towel, my shirt, etc without worrying about the lens element. I remove it occassionally but that doesnt happen very often.

redcat · 06-11-2016, 12:54 AM

I use b&w filter to protect my lens and never see any quality issue on the photos

hd hoya is another good choice

Ontarian50 · 06-11-2016, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by pacerr

Or more likely off the well-coated surface of the front element of the lens.

Mmmmm . . . if it's a reflection off the sensor it's present on the back surface of a lens element and therefore observable in the VF . . . if you're looking for it.

A primary characteristic of Di coatings is that they're also applied to the rear surface(s) of lens elements to reduce those pesky internal reflections.

Personally, I love filters of all types. The empty rings are useful for many things including modular, stackable hoods and filter thread protection.

Lens surfaces are curved and don't exhibit this bounce back effect. This is a strictly digital era phenomenon, and I'm baffled more photographers aren't discussing it, or are aware of it. When it occurs the secondary image is exactly the same size as the original - if you photograph a lighted Christmas tree, you see a second set of lights, shifted off axis. There's no magnification or shrinkage - meaning it was reflected off the flat surface of the low pass filter.

And if you take off the filter, it disappears.

Test it yourself!

Dlanor Sekao · 06-11-2016, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by csa

Same here!

+1........have UV and haze filters bur rarely use them.

tibbitts · 06-11-2016, 08:16 AM

I'v had Tiffen uncoated filters in the past, and while they are, well, uncoated, they didn't degrade the image in other respects that I could identify. And Tiffen has provided excellent customer service for me, so they definitely get credit for that. Their multicoated filters tend to be pricey, however, and I've never tried them.

I try to always us a hood, but I frequently get gunk on my lenses that I wash off with running water and whatever chemical is handy (soap, etc.), so I don't like to just not use a filter. I don't think the UV feature is relevant today, however, so a plain filter would work as well. I will say that the plain class filters clean up easier than all but the newest and most expensive multi-coated filters, plus I'm not sure if you can use just any old cleaning chemical that's handy for cutting through grease and grime on the less robust multicoated filters.

It should be mentioned that many Pentax lenses don't have bayonets for hoods, and that's kind of inexcusable, plus it seems like it's a poor marketing decision. My old Canon lenses never came with hoods, so I had to fork over a lot of money to Canon since only OEM hoods fit on their bayonet. Those cost a lot for being a piece of plastic. And those hoods lost their grip after some years, so... yet another sales opportunity, in this case years later (unless the hood was discontinued, of course.) I realize that some of the most popular lenses inspire ebay clone hoods, but realistically that's not a factor for less popular lenses. Also, when you smash your lens+hood into something hard, it would be nice to have the hood designed to break before the lens' bayonet, again favoring a more carefully engineered OEM bayonet hood that would leave both your filter threads and lens undamaged.

I did own an Vivitar polarizing filter that severely degraded the image quality of my lens, in terms of sharpness, so it is definitely possible for filters to do that. I just haven't had that happen with a Tiffen filter. Also it might be that with very high grade longer lenses, none of which I own, slight sharpness degradation from filters would be more noticeable.

Elliot · 06-11-2016, 11:57 AM

This was not on a Pentax, but happened last year to a filter on a Panasonic lens on a micro 4/3 camera.

The camera was on the rear seat of the car -- in a small, modestly padded bag -- but slipped onto the carpeted floor -- and this happened to the filter somehow. (It may have hit the seat's metal brackets.) The lens was unaffected.

If there had been no filter, I believe there would have been no drama, i.e., no effect on the lens. I think somehow the force hit the filter ring and caused the shattering, since the filter ring was no longer perfectly round, meaning the (perhaps) softer metal on the filter took a blow.

Name: VB210082.jpeg
Views: 291
Size: 131.9 KB

Name: VB210082.jpeg
Views: 291
Size: 131.9 KB

**Kerrowdown** · 06-11-2016, 12:18 PM - **1 Like**

All my "Ladies" run around naked, but with their respective hoods on.

lesmore49 · 06-11-2016, 02:15 PM

I use my hoods and also filters....invariably B+W...expensive glass filters, not a cheap filter. I have no difficulty with reflections. I don't use filters on my 3 Limiteds...a 21, 40 and 70. They don't seem to fit very well on these three lenses...or my 10-17 Fisheye...same reason.

**Nakedgun** · 06-11-2016, 03:32 PM

I keep filters on my lenses...when I'm not using them.

**BigMackCam** · 06-11-2016, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I don't use filters on my 3 Limiteds...a 21, 40 and 70. They don't seem to fit very well on these three lenses

Are you aware that filters can be fitted inside the hoods on the 21 and 40 Limiteds? I've fitted UV filters on my 21, 40 and 70 without problems; a 43mm Hoya slim inside of the DA21 hood, 30.5mm Marumi (that's all I could find) inside of the DA40 hood, and 49mm Hoya slim on the DA70 with the hood screwed into that (I don't notice any vignetting, or if there is, it is insignificant)...

lesmore49 · 06-11-2016, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Are you aware that filters can be fitted inside the hoods on the 21 and 40 Limiteds? I've fitted UV filters on my 21, 40 and 70 without problems; a 43mm Hoya slim inside of the DA21 hood, 30.5mm Marumi (that's all I could find) inside of the DA40 hood, and 49mm Hoya slim on the DA70 with the hood screwed into that (I don't notice any vignetting, or if there is, it is insignificant)...

I'll have to take a look at that. Thx for the hint.

**gofour3** · 06-12-2016, 09:05 AM

Another option is Pentax SMC filters.

Pentax used to make SMC filters in various types (UV, Skylight, Red, Orange and so on) for the filter thread sizes of their lenses. (49mm, 52mm 58mm, 67mm and so on)

You can still find them new old stock, as well as gently used. These filter were designed for the Pentax film era lenses and are excellent quality.

Phil.

**goatsNdonkey** · 06-12-2016, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by AtitG

i use a hood and a filter and leave the lens cap at home. The filter allows me to wipe the lens with a lens cloth, towel, my shirt, etc without worrying about the lens element. I remove it occassionally but that doesnt happen very often.

I like this approach, for if you have a filter mounted on the lens, you do still have the option to remove it. If it is not there, the lens is at more risk, should the unexpected, or mere clumsiness, strike.

---------- Post added 06-12-16 at 05:01 PM ----------

Originally posted by lesmore49

I use my hoods and also filters.....

Also a logical approach if one is cautious. Anyone who holds their trousers up with both belt AND suspenders understands this.

nicolpa47 · 06-12-2016, 03:23 PM

I tend to use both hoods and filters. A lot of the photos I take are close to the sea - beach sunsets, surfing, waves, and associated landscapes. It is often not so easy to see, but even on cliffs well above sea level the spray does penetrate. Quite frequently I'll come home to find a thin coating of salt spray on the filter. I'd rather it be there than on the lens. I haven't particularly noticed an effect on image quality through having the filters in place on my Pentax cameras. My wife has a Nikon bridge camera and that seems much more susceptible to flare or false images, even with a hood in place.

**LaurenOE** · 06-12-2016, 03:32 PM - **1 Like**

If they sold plastic lightweight lens caps - that screwed on - then I would not use a filter most times. However, with Pentax, WR is part of the game, and out in the field I'd rather clean a filter, than a lens. Too often, as I walk around or shove a lens back into it's pouch, I realize that the lens cap - pinch or slip on - has fallen off, and my lens is without any protection.

I have no fantasies about a filter protecting in a severe frontal impact, it's the little things that I try and protect against.

I also like condensation to form on a filter, instead of a lens, so I can wipe it off without thinking if I might scratch something.

When using a filter, I notice where the incident light is, so that I don't get reflections from the filter glass. A filter can always be taken off, so it's not a big deal to have them on everything.

As for a filter actually correcting anything in the UV range?
Not really needed with dSLR and RAW files.

06-11-2016, 08:16 AM	#35
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I'v had Tiffen uncoated filters in the past, and while they are, well, uncoated, they didn't degrade the image in other respects that I could identify. And Tiffen has provided excellent customer service for me, so they definitely get credit for that. Their multicoated filters tend to be pricey, however, and I've never tried them. I try to always us a hood, but I frequently get gunk on my lenses that I wash off with running water and whatever chemical is handy (soap, etc.), so I don't like to just not use a filter. I don't think the UV feature is relevant today, however, so a plain filter would work as well. I will say that the plain class filters clean up easier than all but the newest and most expensive multi-coated filters, plus I'm not sure if you can use just any old cleaning chemical that's handy for cutting through grease and grime on the less robust multicoated filters. It should be mentioned that many Pentax lenses don't have bayonets for hoods, and that's kind of inexcusable, plus it seems like it's a poor marketing decision. My old Canon lenses never came with hoods, so I had to fork over a lot of money to Canon since only OEM hoods fit on their bayonet. Those cost a lot for being a piece of plastic. And those hoods lost their grip after some years, so... yet another sales opportunity, in this case years later (unless the hood was discontinued, of course.) I realize that some of the most popular lenses inspire ebay clone hoods, but realistically that's not a factor for less popular lenses. Also, when you smash your lens+hood into something hard, it would be nice to have the hood designed to break before the lens' bayonet, again favoring a more carefully engineered OEM bayonet hood that would leave both your filter threads and lens undamaged. I did own an Vivitar polarizing filter that severely degraded the image quality of my lens, in terms of sharpness, so it is definitely possible for filters to do that. I just haven't had that happen with a Tiffen filter. Also it might be that with very high grade longer lenses, none of which I own, slight sharpness degradation from filters would be more noticeable. Last edited by tibbitts; 06-11-2016 at 08:22 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Use of ND Filters	Bruce Clark	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	02-14-2015 02:53 AM
Are the use of UV filters really that bad?	harleynitelite	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	07-18-2013 04:55 PM
UV / Skylight filters...use em or not?	slackercruster	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	07-18-2012 05:41 PM
To use UV filters or Not to use UV filters?HELP NEEDED	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-20-2010 04:50 PM
Do you like to use UV filters?	Gooshin	Post Your Photos!	5	11-02-2008 05:56 AM

06-10-2016, 10:17 PM - 1 Like	#31
AtitG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 269	i use a hood and a filter and leave the lens cap at home. The filter allows me to wipe the lens with a lens cloth, towel, my shirt, etc without worrying about the lens element. I remove it occassionally but that doesnt happen very often.

06-11-2016, 12:54 AM	#32
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	I use b&w filter to protect my lens and never see any quality issue on the photos hd hoya is another good choice

06-11-2016, 07:25 AM	#33
Ontarian50 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 530	Originally posted by pacerr Or more likely off the well-coated surface of the front element of the lens. Mmmmm . . . if it's a reflection off the sensor it's present on the back surface of a lens element and therefore observable in the VF . . . if you're looking for it. A primary characteristic of Di coatings is that they're also applied to the rear surface(s) of lens elements to reduce those pesky internal reflections. Personally, I love filters of all types. The empty rings are useful for many things including modular, stackable hoods and filter thread protection. Lens surfaces are curved and don't exhibit this bounce back effect. This is a strictly digital era phenomenon, and I'm baffled more photographers aren't discussing it, or are aware of it. When it occurs the secondary image is exactly the same size as the original - if you photograph a lighted Christmas tree, you see a second set of lights, shifted off axis. There's no magnification or shrinkage - meaning it was reflected off the flat surface of the low pass filter. And if you take off the filter, it disappears. Test it yourself!

06-11-2016, 07:30 AM	#34
Dlanor Sekao Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,457	Originally posted by csa Same here! +1........have UV and haze filters bur rarely use them.

06-11-2016, 11:57 AM	#36
Elliot Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 281	This was not on a Pentax, but happened last year to a filter on a Panasonic lens on a micro 4/3 camera. The camera was on the rear seat of the car -- in a small, modestly padded bag -- but slipped onto the carpeted floor -- and this happened to the filter somehow. (It may have hit the seat's metal brackets.) The lens was unaffected. If there had been no filter, I believe there would have been no drama, i.e., no effect on the lens. I think somehow the force hit the filter ring and caused the shattering, since the filter ring was no longer perfectly round, meaning the (perhaps) softer metal on the filter took a blow.

06-11-2016, 12:18 PM - 1 Like	#37
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,860	All my "Ladies" run around naked, but with their respective hoods on.

06-11-2016, 02:15 PM	#38
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	I use my hoods and also filters....invariably B+W...expensive glass filters, not a cheap filter. I have no difficulty with reflections. I don't use filters on my 3 Limiteds...a 21, 40 and 70. They don't seem to fit very well on these three lenses...or my 10-17 Fisheye...same reason.

06-11-2016, 03:32 PM	#39
Nakedgun Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Southwest Posts: 1,365	I keep filters on my lenses...when I'm not using them.

06-11-2016, 03:52 PM	#40
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,687	Originally posted by lesmore49 I don't use filters on my 3 Limiteds...a 21, 40 and 70. They don't seem to fit very well on these three lenses Are you aware that filters can be fitted inside the hoods on the 21 and 40 Limiteds? I've fitted UV filters on my 21, 40 and 70 without problems; a 43mm Hoya slim inside of the DA21 hood, 30.5mm Marumi (that's all I could find) inside of the DA40 hood, and 49mm Hoya slim on the DA70 with the hood screwed into that (I don't notice any vignetting, or if there is, it is insignificant)...

06-11-2016, 04:10 PM	#41
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	Originally posted by BigMackCam Are you aware that filters can be fitted inside the hoods on the 21 and 40 Limiteds? I've fitted UV filters on my 21, 40 and 70 without problems; a 43mm Hoya slim inside of the DA21 hood, 30.5mm Marumi (that's all I could find) inside of the DA40 hood, and 49mm Hoya slim on the DA70 with the hood screwed into that (I don't notice any vignetting, or if there is, it is insignificant)... I'll have to take a look at that. Thx for the hint.

06-12-2016, 09:05 AM	#42
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,092	Another option is Pentax SMC filters. Pentax used to make SMC filters in various types (UV, Skylight, Red, Orange and so on) for the filter thread sizes of their lenses. (49mm, 52mm 58mm, 67mm and so on) You can still find them new old stock, as well as gently used. These filter were designed for the Pentax film era lenses and are excellent quality. Phil.

06-12-2016, 02:57 PM	#43
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,736	Originally posted by AtitG i use a hood and a filter and leave the lens cap at home. The filter allows me to wipe the lens with a lens cloth, towel, my shirt, etc without worrying about the lens element. I remove it occassionally but that doesnt happen very often. I like this approach, for if you have a filter mounted on the lens, you do still have the option to remove it. If it is not there, the lens is at more risk, should the unexpected, or mere clumsiness, strike. ---------- Post added 06-12-16 at 05:01 PM ---------- Originally posted by lesmore49 I use my hoods and also filters..... Also a logical approach if one is cautious. Anyone who holds their trousers up with both belt AND suspenders understands this.

06-12-2016, 03:23 PM	#44
nicolpa47 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,034	I tend to use both hoods and filters. A lot of the photos I take are close to the sea - beach sunsets, surfing, waves, and associated landscapes. It is often not so easy to see, but even on cliffs well above sea level the spray does penetrate. Quite frequently I'll come home to find a thin coating of salt spray on the filter. I'd rather it be there than on the lens. I haven't particularly noticed an effect on image quality through having the filters in place on my Pentax cameras. My wife has a Nikon bridge camera and that seems much more susceptible to flare or false images, even with a hood in place.

06-12-2016, 03:32 PM - 1 Like	#45
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	If they sold plastic lightweight lens caps - that screwed on - then I would not use a filter most times. However, with Pentax, WR is part of the game, and out in the field I'd rather clean a filter, than a lens. Too often, as I walk around or shove a lens back into it's pouch, I realize that the lens cap - pinch or slip on - has fallen off, and my lens is without any protection. I have no fantasies about a filter protecting in a severe frontal impact, it's the little things that I try and protect against. I also like condensation to form on a filter, instead of a lens, so I can wipe it off without thinking if I might scratch something. When using a filter, I notice where the incident light is, so that I don't get reflections from the filter glass. A filter can always be taken off, so it's not a big deal to have them on everything. As for a filter actually correcting anything in the UV range? Not really needed with dSLR and RAW files.