[pepperberry farm]

Can those be substituted for Oreo cookies ?

I don't see why not, other than the obvious: you really shouldn't eat them after the shoot....

[ProfessorBuzz]

Technically, there is a single internal UV and IR blocking filter immediately in front of the CCD or CMOS image sensor in the digital camera. It's job is to reject unwanted wavelengths. So there is no need except for protection.

[MossyRocks]

A UV filter isn't needed, nor is it optically beneficial, with any lens (new or old) on digital cameras.

In most cases I would agree but with some lenses (old or new) when doing astro shots some UV filters will dramatically cut down on the purple fringing around stars. However there it is a solution to a very specific problem in a specific setting where one is making a conscious decision about the trade off in other image quality to solve a specific glaring issue. Keep in mind that it isn't all UV filters, and I tried to find the thread over in the astro group where someone did a deep dive into it but can't find it.

Filters should be used to achieve some specific effect or to solve a specific problem so if it isn't doing either of those then it is just harming you image. A better solution to protecting the front element from bumps and the like would be a good lens hood.

[nbs2222]

Yes, it's the same for vintage lenses

In my opinion, the best type of filter for purely protective use would be a multi-coated clear one - but I've not seen these available. Uncoated clear filters, uncoated UV and coated / multi-coated UV seem to be the choices.

I mostly use Hoya HMC multi-coated UV filters when I want to protect the front element. They've scored quite well in tests regarding image quality and reflections / flare, and they're reasonably priced.

Thanks!

I once had Hoya HMC too. Also, I found this what hoya stated as a SMC clear filter (HOYA | FUSION ANTISTATIC PROTECTOR) yesterday and thinking of buying it. (All K lenses are 52mm so I can just buy only a single filter)

And regarding hood on vintage lenses, which one you prefer - a screw-in hood or Pentax square clip-on hood? Their cost are a lot different though.

[sergysergy]

However, the filters are useful to catch snowflakes on for macro work.

That's ingenious...I should try this winter

[nbs2222]

That's ingenious...I should try this winter

Sadly I will have to go abroad if I wanna try this... No snow is my country

---------- Post added 11-07-19 at 07:08 AM ----------

In most cases I would agree but with some lenses (old or new) when doing astro shots some UV filters will dramatically cut down on the purple fringing around stars. However there it is a solution to a very specific problem in a specific setting where one is making a conscious decision about the trade off in other image quality to solve a specific glaring issue. Keep in mind that it isn't all UV filters, and I tried to find the thread over in the astro group where someone did a deep dive into it but can't find it.

Filters should be used to achieve some specific effect or to solve a specific problem so if it isn't doing either of those then it is just harming you image. A better solution to protecting the front element from bumps and the like would be a good lens hood.

Regarding the hood for old lenses, should I invest in the Pentax 52mm square clip-on hood or just any screw-in hood will do the job?

[ChristianRock]

Vintage lenses are made with glass just like new lenses... so in this case, what is good for one is good for the other.

I also don't use UV or haze filters. I have used warming filters in the past because I like how they look compared to just changing the white balance. I've played with soft effect filters, and I love me a polarizer, but most of the time, I don't use a filter at all, even when I should use the polarizers more...

[BigMackCam]

In most cases I would agree but with some lenses (old or new) when doing astro shots some UV filters will dramatically cut down on the purple fringing around stars. However there it is a solution to a very specific problem in a specific setting where one is making a conscious decision about the trade off in other image quality to solve a specific glaring issue. Keep in mind that it isn't all UV filters, and I tried to find the thread over in the astro group where someone did a deep dive into it but can't find it.

Filters should be used to achieve some specific effect or to solve a specific problem so if it isn't doing either of those then it is just harming you image. A better solution to protecting the front element from bumps and the like would be a good lens hood.

I'd read that IR/UV cut filters are required with full-spectrum-modified cameras and ED glass, but hadn't heard of UV filters for general astro use. I'll have to read up on this... Though astro photography isn't a thing for me, I'm still interested to understand such matters! Thanks for the heads-up

[MossyRocks]

Regarding the hood for old lenses, should I invest in the Pentax 52mm square clip-on hood or just any screw-in hood will do the job?

Either one would be good provided they are not blocking the edge/corner of the frame. I usually use the original hood if the has one because I know those to be good.

[Riggomatic]

Do you preferred clear filter to UV filter in a situation you have to use one?

No preference. The one used for snowflakes is clear though.

That's ingenious...I should try this winter

Thanks. I leave it out overnight in a Ziploc bag so the glass is nice and cold. I started to make an adapter to attach this to my spare tripod, but apparently saw something shiny and forgot all about that project.

I need to revisit that before the snow starts flying around here.

[MossyRocks]

I'd read that IR/UV cut filters are required with full-spectrum-modified cameras and ED glass, but hadn't heard of UV filters for general astro use. I'll have to read up on this... Though astro photography isn't a thing for me, I'm still interested to understand such matters! Thanks for the heads-up

Like I said using a UV filter on the lens is specific to some lenses but only some UV filters will solve the problem. I finally found the thread over in the astro group where it devolved into that side discussion. Lew Dite is the one doing that and had success. He links to some other articles where others have experimented with them in other high contrast situations.

[CapitanXeon]

My stack is approaching Pringles can dimensions. Some day I'll think of a creative use for them, perhaps mounted in a stained glass panel.

You could harvest those filter rings to create 3d printed bokeh filters, or whatever shanenigan your mind gets across. Possibilities are kinda endless.

On the topic: No, you don't need an UV filter on a DSLR, except when your front element integrity can be threatened for some reason. Story: My phone got hit by a flying rock on a racetrack, that rock cracked an additional layer of glass, not the phone's glass, so there you go. A 6 dollar slab that saved me from a 200$ repair. I want my lenses in one piece as well

[From1980]

Hi, I’m pretty new to using classic lenses on DSLR and I’m not sure if a filter, particular UV one, is needed. I’ve been reading on quite a lot of sites and some said that old lenses, unlike newer lenses, do need a UV filter, while some said it does not mater. So I’m unsure right now if I should buy it. (If I buy, it would be the Hoya fusion antistatic UV filter)

I’m currently using the SMC Pentax 30mm f2.8 on a Pentax KP.

Any help is appreciated, thanks!

We've been around and around on this a few times now. The short answer is no, no, no, no, no, no, .......

I have had that 30mm lens for many years. The SMC coating and proper handling will get you the best image quality and then post-processing of some sort is usually applied anyway while using a DSLR. It's far more important to use the best suited hood on your lens and use the lens cap for protection when you don't need to see through it. The use of UV or "protective" filters was virtually never needed by anyone at the time that lens came out and absolutely redundant now for a digital sensor. When I worked at a store UV filters were sold only if a customer with old school thinking insisted on it. Those may have been justified many years earlier when photography was done with little to no coating on lens elements and the films were more sensitive to UV.
It's best not to introduce any unnecessary item between your subject and your expensive modern optical formula.

[ecostigny]

We've been around and around on this a few times now. The short answer is no, no, no, no, no, no, .......

I have had that 30mm lens for many years. The SMC coating and proper handling will get you the best image quality and then post-processing of some sort is usually applied anyway while using a DSLR. It's far more important to use the best suited hood on your lens and use the lens cap for protection when you don't need to see through it. The use of UV or "protective" filters was virtually never needed by anyone at the time that lens came out and absolutely redundant now for a digital sensor. When I worked at a store UV filters were sold only if a customer with old school thinking insisted on it. Those may have been justified many years earlier when photography was done with little to no coating on lens elements and the films were more sensitive to UV.
It's best not to introduce any unnecessary item between your subject and your expensive modern optical formula.

I guess I qualify as old school, then. Just before I bought my Pentax camera in 1984, I borrowed a friend's Olympus and shot some desert landscapes around Yuma, Arizona. All my daylight shots were overexposed, and I was advised that a UV filter would have prevented that (I could not mount any filter on my friend's lens as its mounting ring was dented). The pictures I took at other times seemed to be OK. I don't remember what lens he had, but I think it was a cheap one without anything remotely like SMC on its elements. I've been shooting with good-quality UV filters ever since, partly to keep UV off my film and partly to protect the front elements of my lenses. However, this conversation has given me cause to consider ditching the UV filters, so I'll have to give it a try and see what happens!

[From1980]

I guess I qualify as old school, then. Just before I bought my Pentax camera in 1984, I borrowed a friend's Olympus and shot some desert landscapes around Yuma, Arizona. All my daylight shots were overexposed, and I was advised that a UV filter would have prevented that

I believe you were misinformed back then. UV filters are just about clear and no filter factor for exposure was ever required to use them. The overexposure was most likely a mistake or misinterpretation of meter settings at the time. When using films with a degree of UV sensitivity the effect would be seen as increased haziness and excessive blue especially in background portions of landscapes. For those cases then as now a polarizer is capable of providing more improvement with a better overall effect than a UV filter can possibly obtain. I think you would be far more pleased if you try that.