Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2016, 07:00 AM   #16
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 40
I've never had luck with Tiffen filters. And I have them for 3 out of 5 lenses.


I found some AmazonBasics branded UV filters online. $8 for a 67mm filter (no 49mm filter). Reviews have been positive. Someone on this site also mentioned Fotasy (https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-CPL49mm-Multi-Coated-Polarizing-Filters/dp/B00KMKPK0I/), which does have 49mm filters. $11 or so I think. Now that summer is almost here, I might invest in one of each to test. I like the idea of having it on, even if it's just protection, but if I can keep it on without it affecting the image, then that's a win-win for me.

06-10-2016, 07:12 AM   #17
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
Here in the UK I buy genuine Hoya HMC UV(c) filters from a reputable supplier at around £8 / US$12 for common smaller sizes (49mm, 52mm etc.) to around £14 (US$21) for the 77mm version... and those prices include delivery. If UV filters are something you find useful, I'm not sure you can find better value than that, considering the performance of the Hoya HMC glass and coatings...
06-10-2016, 07:23 AM   #18
Pentaxian
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoCal/I.E.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,698
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
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!
^ Pretty much what he said. UV filters are mainly used with film cameras, and are pretty much limited to that.
On DSLR's, there's really no need to put them on it. Most people put it on digital camera's to "protect" the lens, though any "improvement" to the digital image is very minimal/non-existant.
06-10-2016, 07:28 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jlstrawman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Midwest US
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,058
QuoteOriginally posted by Piscator Quote
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.
Hoods for me. In 50 years of shooting, never had any kind of damage to any lens or camera. I simply try to pay attention and be aware of where I am, my surroundings, and don't do risky things with my equipment.

06-10-2016, 07:29 AM - 1 Like   #20
Veteran Member
Ontarian50's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 530
What the OP is getting is bounce back off the sensor, which is why you won't see it in the viewfinder before the shot.

This didn't happen in the film days because film has a diffuse matte surface. Digital sensors are highly shiny, and some light bounces off the sensor filter and goes back through the lens. Since a lens filter is exactly parallel to the sensor, that light can be reflected back again and forms a dim double image. It's especially noticeable with bright lights against a dark background - ie: Christmas trees, suspension bridges at night, etc. However, it follows that there must always be some reflection or scattering in every shot, even if it isn't as obvious as this stained glass in a darkened room.

In the last decade or so, we've seen the introduction of the "digital" filter. But this is one of those rare occasions where it isn't just silly marketing. If done properly, "digital" grade filters have higher grade coatings on their rear surface, hopefully allowing light coming back through the lens to escape to the outside world.

I've done experiments using bright small light sources, and sure enough, older, lesser-coated filters give strong double images. "Digital" filters really reduce the effect, but don't completely get rid of it. Taking the filter off solves the problem.

If that Tiffen UV is an older style one, then yes, you're better off without it. If you feel the need to keep that front element protected, look for one of the newer better grade "digital" filters. When you take it out of the box, it should look like a metal ring with nothing inside it - unless you hold it at just the right angle and see the lovely green coatings.
06-10-2016, 07:32 AM - 1 Like   #21
bxf
Veteran Member
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,660
You may want to read this: UV filters test - Tiffen 72mm UV - LensTip.com
06-10-2016, 07:46 AM   #22
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
^^^ Bill - it was that same series of reviews that got me interested in the Hoya HMC UV(0) filters, after which I settled on the slim-frame UV(c) models. Good reviews with some excellent examples of what to expect from the best and worst. What I think is most telling is that, even with "the best" models (which doesn't necessarily mean the most expensive!), there are occasions where some flare / reflections are a real possibility - so you do have to be selective in when and when not to use them...

06-10-2016, 08:03 AM   #23
bxf
Veteran Member
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,660
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
^^^ Bill - it was that same series of reviews that got me interested in the Hoya HMC UV(0) filters, after which I settled on the slim-frame UV(c) models. Good reviews with some excellent examples of what to expect from the best and worst. What I think is most telling is that, even with "the best" models (which doesn't necessarily mean the most expensive!), there are occasions where some flare / reflections are a real possibility - so you do have to be selective in when and when not to use them...
Yup, that just about sums up everything. And I also go for the slim HMC as a result of that article.
06-10-2016, 08:25 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
IMO use a hood, no UV "protective" filter. The hood improves image quality while slightly decreasing the risk of lens damage from accidents. The UV filter degrades digital image quality.

Some people say the UV filter means they have to clean their lens less often and will get fewer lens scratches. I say those people might be cleaning too aggressively or too frequently. Modern lens coatings are very sturdy and you won't rub them off with gentle cleaning. Dust on the front element is out of focus and invisible; dust spots that show in photos are on the sensor.

A rare exception where a protective filter might be needed is if you expect to be in an especially hazardous environment, like photographing ocean spray or near where chemicals are being sprayed.
06-10-2016, 10:32 AM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 61
I always like to use filters on my lenses.

Initially UV filters in my slide-film days but now always. While working my way through a festival crowd one summer's day, a person bumped into my camera with a paper cup filled with orange soda pop! I was not happy, to say the least, but glad I had a UV filter on my lens.
06-10-2016, 11:07 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 793
Elements marked with "MRC *Multi-Reflective Coating, a.k.a. HMC, MC, SMC, etc." they all server this purpose. Lenses already have this coating and is the best you can get. A UV filter essentially becomes another element in the optical path when attached to the front. Since it is not designed for a particular lens but diameter you can almost always produce this error even in high end filters. Its the nature of that extra element. It may not be as profound sa described in the picture above but it is present.

Lenses are getting cheaper IMHO so use them with ultra care but without filters. A hood can also become a first line of defense against the lense element and is highly recommended. A protective filter should not be used unless you have kids around as your subjects who tend to touch the lens element often out of curiosity. Even then baseline coatings on the lenses are so good that a few oil stains here and there can easily come off with lens cleaning wipes. So I am inclined to recommend no use filters at all unless you are super careless. Check on what and when you can afford.. A reflection in almost every other shot vs. having to buy a new lens in 2 years (because accidents happen).
06-10-2016, 11:30 AM - 1 Like   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,760
Alternative protection: deglass your filters and screw the leftover metal ring onto the front of your camera. It's not as protective as an added piece of glass in front of your lens, but it will protect it if bumped or dropped on a relatively flat surface.
06-10-2016, 11:43 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by Ontarian50 Quote
What the OP is getting is bounce back off the sensor,
Or more likely off the well-coated surface of the front element of the lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ontarian50 Quote
...which is why you won't see it in the viewfinder before the shot
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.
06-10-2016, 08:12 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
K-Three's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pugetopolis, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 935
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
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.
There is a mirror in the way when you are looking through the view finder, the sensor is not part of the light path until after the shutter is released, and the mirror flips up out of the way,
Unless you are in live-view, then you might see it.
06-10-2016, 09:55 PM - 1 Like   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Blue Hill, Nebraska
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 494
Those interested in this thread may find this article interesting: LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters. I am in the group preferring to not use filters except for a CPL when shooting conditions warrant. Hoods are always on unless shooting with the DA 12-24 (hood is large & bulky and lens is pretty flare resistant anyway) or the DA 50 f/1.8 (the front element is nicely recessed in the lens body when focussed to near infinity). I haven't damaged a lens yet and happily accept the risks of my wild filterless actions.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
approach, fa, filter, k-mount, lens, lens cap, pentax lens, photos, protection, slr lens, uv, uv filter tiffen
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top