Whoa! Reconsidering use of UV filters...

Piscator · 06-09-2016, 08:05 PM

I know everyone has their opinions on this issue, and there are at least five threads existing on the topic already, but here's what happened today. I got my brand-new "Plastic Fantastic" 35/2.4 in the mail today and immediately slapped it on my K-5iis and started wandering around the house taking random photos. The thought occurred to me that I would need to get a UV filter for it b/c that's what I always do. Meantime I figured I'd just steal the one from my FA 50/1.4, since it was the same size (49mm). After installing it, I thought it might be interesting to take a fairly identical shot to one I had just taken sans filter and compare the two later. I figured I'd have to do some serious pixel-peeping to see any real difference. Actually, the difference was immediately apparent on the review screen: A nasty little reflection artifact right there on the "with filter" photo. I had noticed similar reflections on some shots I had taken a few days ago with the FA 50/1.4, but I was chalking those up to the lens itself coupled with obnoxious backlighting. Now I know it was the filter. The filter is a Tiffen 49mm UV filter made in the USA. The two comparison photos are below. So....is this something I would not see with a different brand/quality of filter, or is this just the price you pay for the protection? For the time being I just removed the filter and installed a rubber hood to provide some protection. I got some nice photos that I'll add to a more appropriate post.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

**pepperberry farm** · 06-09-2016, 08:27 PM - **3 Likes**

hoods for me, every lens gets one...

**Tas** · 06-09-2016, 08:33 PM - **1 Like**

That is an interesting reflection, it looks like one you might have seen in the VF. Sometimes they are subtle though but now you know it can occur it can be something to look out for to avoid a reoccurrence if you intend to retain the use of the filters.

Personally, I have UV filters on most of my lenses, but I rarely ever take photos with them on. I mean, why buy good lenses then add another layer in front of them, even if it is a good quality filter?

I keep mine on as a way of reducing the need to clean the front lens element so often and so they are available when I am shooting in conditions where I want to protect the front lens element from salt spray, or airborne sand/dust etc. The only other circumstance I can conceive that I might use a UV filter for is if I really wanted an image and the front element was constantly getting wet. In this case I could avoid the need to wipe the front lens element constantly as I would be wiping the filter dry instead.

Other than this they are never involved when I take images and I think you'd find better results without them too. IMHO, YMMV etc etc

Oh, and as mentioned above, I have hoods on all my lenses. I bought a collapsible rubber jobbie for the FA50/1.4 as it felt lonely without one.

Tas

**csa** · 06-09-2016, 08:36 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

hoods for me, every lens gets one...

Same here!

**jatrax** · 06-09-2016, 08:41 PM - **1 Like**

Hood yes, filters no. Though I understand from other posts that a really good multi-coated protection filter will mostly eliminate the issue. But those cost serious money, so I just use the hood.

beachboy2 · 06-09-2016, 08:52 PM

Lots of cheap filters don't have anti-reflection coatings and even more expensive filters can be pirate copies of good brands and not be coated. Something to be alert to.

**K-Three** · 06-09-2016, 08:53 PM

Ditto for hoods, and no filter, often no front lens cap either, just put it back, nose down in the bag with the hood still in place,
About the only shortcoming of the plastic fantastics, no dedicated hoods for them. All my other Pentax lens have come with good hoods.
I have mixed feelings about rubber hoods too, the ones I have used in the past seem to collect dust more than plastic or metal, when you "pop" the hood back and forth it scatters the dust around.
I do like the bump protection they provide though. Better than a rigid hood.

**kiwi_jono** · 06-09-2016, 08:54 PM

Interesting example! I have seen this sort of thing before (although its less with really good multi coated filters).

I generally prefer to avoid filters for most of my lenses (particularly if its a plastic fantastic lens!). I also think a hood is nearly as good at protecting.

One advantage of a filter is that you don't have to worry as much when cleaning it (worse case if you scratch a filter then you can throw the filter away), however if you are using a more expensive multi-coated filter (which you should to avoid flare etc issues) then you worry about cleaning it again - negating some of this advantage anyway.

**clackers** · 06-09-2016, 09:22 PM

Hood and cap go on, UV filter to the bin! :-D

**geomez** · 06-09-2016, 10:48 PM

Hoods up, filters down.

Adam · 06-10-2016, 12:47 AM

I think UV filters died together with film. They were fun while they lasted, but they definitely don't do much to enhance the IQ, and often backfire. Hoods all the way!

bobore · 06-10-2016, 01:20 AM - **3 Likes**

Hoya HMC filters (Japan) for me on every lens.

I'd much rather be exposing a filter to humanity & necessary cleaning.

Single coated Tiffen-USA filters are junk, imho.

**BigMackCam** · 06-10-2016, 01:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bobore

Hoya HMC filters (Japan) for me on every lens.

+1... I have one on every lens I own, for protection only. When conditions allow - eg. no rain, no dirt, no grit, sand or spray blowing around, shooting indoors - or if I'm shooting toward bright lighting (inc. lunar shots, bright street lights, strong sun reflections off chrome etc.), I take the filter off whatever lens I'm using (the less there is between the lens and my subject, the better

). The rest of the time, it stays in place... The benefit - and this is a personal thing - is that I can easily clean the filter in the field with whatever cloth I have to hand (usually microfibre, but I've used my shirt tail, handkerchief, turned-out jeans pocket etc.) and not worry about having to remove any non-obvious contaminants with a blower or brush first. Only recently I managed to scratch a filter this way... not badly enough to warrant replacing, but if the scratches had been on the front element of the lens, I'd have been upset about it. With time, I've become adept at judging when the filter may result in unwanted reflections, and I balance my decision on the shooting conditions and risk of impacting an image.

I also use hoods when required, and I agree with others here that they offer great protection (plus, of course, they can play a big role in reducing flare and optimising contrast) - however, when you're shooting somewhat into the wind in a dusty / sandy / wet environment, they won't keep the front element clean - especially if it's a wide angle / normal lens (the longer tele hoods do seem a bit better in this respect so long as you're not shooting directly into the wind.

I test every UV filter I buy. Some time ago I noticed a strange effect in the bokeh on some of my images, where slightly out of focus areas had feint diagonal lines clearly visible. Testing proved the effect was caused by the Kenko UV filter fitted to the lens. I then tested my other UV filters and found several that were optically poor for one reason or another. I've never had a problem with the Hoya HMC UV(c) filters I now use, and they're also one of the best in terms of minimising unwanted reflections. In general, I notice no degradation of image quality from them - comparing with / without filter images at 1:1 magnification in Lightroom... However, I have a couple of old Tamron Adaptall lenses - a 60-300mm zoom and a 300mm prime - both of which do seem very, very slightly sharper without a filter. The difference isn't noticeable at 1:2 reproduction, but it's still worth bearing in mind.

It's an emotive and divisive subject, but so long as the pro's and con's of using UV filters (and not using them) are understood, it's down to the individual photographer to decide what works best for them

EDIT: Congratulations on your new "plastic fantastic" DA35 f/2.4... possibly my favourite lens

**niceshot** · 06-10-2016, 02:40 AM - **1 Like**

i like when people use filters especially when I buy the lens off of them. But frankly I don't use them

**savoche** · 06-10-2016, 03:08 AM

Yep, good illustration that (bad quality) filters can ruin the IQ of good lenses. Good quality filters are quite costly. I figure that buying a good filter for all of my lenses will be more expensive than replacing a lens. So I go without. And so far I haven't ruined anything

Besides, I think hoods and caps provide better protection anyway - and a hood potentially increase the IQ. Double win.

06-10-2016, 12:47 AM	#11
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	I think UV filters died together with film. They were fun while they lasted, but they definitely don't do much to enhance the IQ, and often backfire. Hoods all the way! Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-10-2016, 01:51 AM - 1 Like	#13
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Originally posted by bobore Hoya HMC filters (Japan) for me on every lens. +1... I have one on every lens I own, for protection only. When conditions allow - eg. no rain, no dirt, no grit, sand or spray blowing around, shooting indoors - or if I'm shooting toward bright lighting (inc. lunar shots, bright street lights, strong sun reflections off chrome etc.), I take the filter off whatever lens I'm using (the less there is between the lens and my subject, the better ). The rest of the time, it stays in place... The benefit - and this is a personal thing - is that I can easily clean the filter in the field with whatever cloth I have to hand (usually microfibre, but I've used my shirt tail, handkerchief, turned-out jeans pocket etc.) and not worry about having to remove any non-obvious contaminants with a blower or brush first. Only recently I managed to scratch a filter this way... not badly enough to warrant replacing, but if the scratches had been on the front element of the lens, I'd have been upset about it. With time, I've become adept at judging when the filter may result in unwanted reflections, and I balance my decision on the shooting conditions and risk of impacting an image. I also use hoods when required, and I agree with others here that they offer great protection (plus, of course, they can play a big role in reducing flare and optimising contrast) - however, when you're shooting somewhat into the wind in a dusty / sandy / wet environment, they won't keep the front element clean - especially if it's a wide angle / normal lens (the longer tele hoods do seem a bit better in this respect so long as you're not shooting directly into the wind. I test every UV filter I buy. Some time ago I noticed a strange effect in the bokeh on some of my images, where slightly out of focus areas had feint diagonal lines clearly visible. Testing proved the effect was caused by the Kenko UV filter fitted to the lens. I then tested my other UV filters and found several that were optically poor for one reason or another. I've never had a problem with the Hoya HMC UV(c) filters I now use, and they're also one of the best in terms of minimising unwanted reflections. In general, I notice no degradation of image quality from them - comparing with / without filter images at 1:1 magnification in Lightroom... However, I have a couple of old Tamron Adaptall lenses - a 60-300mm zoom and a 300mm prime - both of which do seem very, very slightly sharper without a filter. The difference isn't noticeable at 1:2 reproduction, but it's still worth bearing in mind. It's an emotive and divisive subject, but so long as the pro's and con's of using UV filters (and not using them) are understood, it's down to the individual photographer to decide what works best for them EDIT: Congratulations on your new "plastic fantastic" DA35 f/2.4... possibly my favourite lens Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-10-2016 at 02:22 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

06-09-2016, 08:27 PM - 3 Likes	#2
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,676	hoods for me, every lens gets one...

06-09-2016, 08:33 PM - 1 Like	#3
Tas Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Brisbane, QLD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,202	That is an interesting reflection, it looks like one you might have seen in the VF. Sometimes they are subtle though but now you know it can occur it can be something to look out for to avoid a reoccurrence if you intend to retain the use of the filters. Personally, I have UV filters on most of my lenses, but I rarely ever take photos with them on. I mean, why buy good lenses then add another layer in front of them, even if it is a good quality filter? I keep mine on as a way of reducing the need to clean the front lens element so often and so they are available when I am shooting in conditions where I want to protect the front lens element from salt spray, or airborne sand/dust etc. The only other circumstance I can conceive that I might use a UV filter for is if I really wanted an image and the front element was constantly getting wet. In this case I could avoid the need to wipe the front lens element constantly as I would be wiping the filter dry instead. Other than this they are never involved when I take images and I think you'd find better results without them too. IMHO, YMMV etc etc Oh, and as mentioned above, I have hoods on all my lenses. I bought a collapsible rubber jobbie for the FA50/1.4 as it felt lonely without one. Tas

06-09-2016, 08:36 PM - 1 Like	#4
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Originally posted by pepperberry farm hoods for me, every lens gets one... Same here!

06-09-2016, 08:41 PM - 1 Like	#5
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Hood yes, filters no. Though I understand from other posts that a really good multi-coated protection filter will mostly eliminate the issue. But those cost serious money, so I just use the hood.

06-09-2016, 08:52 PM	#6
beachboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 222	Lots of cheap filters don't have anti-reflection coatings and even more expensive filters can be pirate copies of good brands and not be coated. Something to be alert to.

06-09-2016, 08:53 PM	#7
K-Three Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Pugetopolis, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 938	Ditto for hoods, and no filter, often no front lens cap either, just put it back, nose down in the bag with the hood still in place, About the only shortcoming of the plastic fantastics, no dedicated hoods for them. All my other Pentax lens have come with good hoods. I have mixed feelings about rubber hoods too, the ones I have used in the past seem to collect dust more than plastic or metal, when you "pop" the hood back and forth it scatters the dust around. I do like the bump protection they provide though. Better than a rigid hood.

06-09-2016, 08:54 PM	#8
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Interesting example! I have seen this sort of thing before (although its less with really good multi coated filters). I generally prefer to avoid filters for most of my lenses (particularly if its a plastic fantastic lens!). I also think a hood is nearly as good at protecting. One advantage of a filter is that you don't have to worry as much when cleaning it (worse case if you scratch a filter then you can throw the filter away), however if you are using a more expensive multi-coated filter (which you should to avoid flare etc issues) then you worry about cleaning it again - negating some of this advantage anyway.

06-09-2016, 09:22 PM	#9
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Hood and cap go on, UV filter to the bin! :-D

06-09-2016, 10:48 PM	#10
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Hoods up, filters down.

06-10-2016, 01:20 AM - 3 Likes	#12
bobore Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Oregon Coast Posts: 162	Hoya HMC filters (Japan) for me on every lens. I'd much rather be exposing a filter to humanity & necessary cleaning. Single coated Tiffen-USA filters are junk, imho.

06-10-2016, 02:40 AM - 1 Like	#14
niceshot Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,564	i like when people use filters especially when I buy the lens off of them. But frankly I don't use them

06-10-2016, 03:08 AM	#15
savoche Master of the obvious Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Lowlands of Norway Posts: 18,311	Yep, good illustration that (bad quality) filters can ruin the IQ of good lenses. Good quality filters are quite costly. I figure that buying a good filter for all of my lenses will be more expensive than replacing a lens. So I go without. And so far I haven't ruined anything Besides, I think hoods and caps provide better protection anyway - and a hood potentially increase the IQ. Double win.