Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-02-2008, 09:29 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 221
Whether to use a UV protective filter?

Is the IQ difference that much better without the UV filter used mostly for protection?

Or is it best to play it safe? If so, which brand filter or type to use?

I will start to play with the different filter types? Does anyone have side by side shots of no filter and with a warming filter aka yellow filter?

thanks

11-02-2008, 09:44 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
Well, you're going to find 2 basic answers for this inquiry. Those who use UV filters religiously, and those who smash UV filters on the ground for fun.

As far as the impact on image clarity much of that is going to depend on which UV filter you're talking about. An $8 Sunpak UV filter or a $80 B+W multi-coated UV/IR filter?

In my opinion (worth every penny you're paying for it...) is a naked lens is a happy lens. Lens hoods and caps provide much better protection and they come free with the lens when you buy it.
11-02-2008, 10:05 AM   #3
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by rdrum76 Quote
Is the IQ difference that much better without the UV filter used mostly for protection?

Or is it best to play it safe? If so, which brand filter or type to use?

I will start to play with the different filter types? Does anyone have side by side shots of no filter and with a warming filter aka yellow filter?

thanks
A UV filter on the lens all the time is not playing it safe. A UV filter when there is a very real possibility of damaging the lens is playing it safe.
If you are in the desert during a sandstorm, a UV filter might be a good thing.
In every day photography, they are generally a waste of money, and do more harm to your images than they do good for your lenses.
11-02-2008, 10:16 AM   #4
emr
Guest




Here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

I was actually just looking for advice on filters myself. I use UV filters on my lenses just for protection. I got Hoya UV HMC filters on my both kit zooms. Today I bought a Hoya UV non-HMC for my FA 50mm and wonder if I did the right thing. Has anybody here compared lenses with and without Hoya filters and with different Hoya UV filters?


Last edited by emr; 11-02-2008 at 10:50 AM.
11-02-2008, 10:25 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North Wales, UK
Posts: 645
When I first started out I used UV filters on all my lenses (Hoya Pro 1 Ds)..I now only bother if shooting in very harsh environments...by the sea, very dusty mountains

simon
11-02-2008, 10:40 AM   #6
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
Funny, for a while, the no-filter crowd had me convinced... why would I sacrifice the all important IQ for protection, but I just sold a six month old DA 18-250 for $275 because it had a tiny scratch on the front element - which I caused cleaning! That loss of value (at least $100 on the used market) has convinced me to protect my new lenses from myself. I just ordered two Hoya Pro1 UVs (and a CP) the other day for my two recent acquisitions. Hoods are good protection 99% of the time, but I tend to do things like climb over barb-wire fences, or scramble up Class 4 rock with my camera dangling around my neck, only to get to the top to find my lens cap is in my pocket. Also several times I've removed a lens from my pack to find that the cap had come off and was floating around next to the front element. I imagine that plastic cap could scratch the front element if it ground on it for a while.

So my more at risk lenses are getting filters. If Jay can produce these images with this lens, I doubt I'll see any IQ drop from a high quality filter.
11-02-2008, 10:56 AM   #7
emr
Guest




It seems the basic Hoya UV filter I bought is utter crap. I should have bought the HMC one, but as it cost more than twice as much as the basic one, I tried to save some money. Well, that was not money spent wisely.

I tried the filter in the house, aiming at a ceiling lamp. Much worse reflections than without the lens. It even seems that the AF had more difficulty in finding a focus. I can't try the HMC Hoyas since they're 52mm and my FA's 49mm but I don't see that bad reflections with the kit zooms that have the HMC filters.

Oh well, another lesson learned.

Anyone want to buy a mint Hoya UV filter? (Just kidding )

Last edited by emr; 11-02-2008 at 11:06 AM.
11-02-2008, 10:57 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by heliphoto Quote
Funny, for a while, the no-filter crowd had me convinced... why would I sacrifice the all important IQ for protection, but I just sold a six month old DA 18-250 for $275 because it had a tiny scratch on the front element - which I caused cleaning! That loss of value (at least $100 on the used market) has convinced me to protect my new lenses from myself. I just ordered two Hoya Pro1 UVs (and a CP) the other day for my two recent acquisitions. Hoods are good protection 99% of the time, but I tend to do things like climb over barb-wire fences, or scramble up Class 4 rock with my camera dangling around my neck, only to get to the top to find my lens cap is in my pocket. Also several times I've removed a lens from my pack to find that the cap had come off and was floating around next to the front element. I imagine that plastic cap could scratch the front element if it ground on it for a while.

So my more at risk lenses are getting filters. If Jay can produce these images with this lens, I doubt I'll see any IQ drop from a high quality filter.
My A600/5.6 came with a 122mm Tamron UV filter mounted. I decided that I would leave the filter on this lens, simply because of the several thousands of dollars that the lens represented.
After finding that even mounted to a Zone VI tripod on a Wimberley gimbal head I couldn't get a sharp picture from it, I took off the Tamron filter and started getting sharp pictures.
There is a huge difference between getting some IQ loss from a lens that is mostly good, but has some fungus, and a global IQ loss from using a UV filter.
Now, there is no accounting for clumsy cleaning, so if you are in the habit of scratching optical surfaces, you might be the one person in a million whome a UV filter is required, but realize you are protecting the lens from yourself, and nothing else.

11-02-2008, 12:17 PM   #9
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
...
Now, there is no accounting for clumsy cleaning, so if you are in the habit of scratching optical surfaces, you might be the one person in a million whome a UV filter is required, but realize you are protecting the lens from yourself, and nothing else.
Well no... I'd like to think I learned my lesson with regard to cleaning. I doubt I'd do that again.

As to IQ loss, we'll see. If I find the results unacceptable, I'll ditch 'em at some financial loss, but if they are acceptable for shooting the meaningless to others but priceless to us snapshots of my son, I'll probably keep 'em on, and maybe take 'em off for "photography trips". We'll see...

What about the polarizer? Can I still use that? and ND? .
11-02-2008, 01:46 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 318
I leave UV filters on my lenses when carried or stored, should the lens cap get knocked off, but unscrew them as I am going to use the lenses. I find this is the best of both worlds, as long as I don't forget to remove them.
11-02-2008, 02:19 PM   #11
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by heliphoto Quote


What about the polarizer? Can I still use that? and ND? .
Well yes. If you need a filter, you use a filter.
Choose your equipment for the shooting situation you are in, as best you can.

For myself, I don't see the need for a protective filter in most situations.
11-02-2008, 04:51 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
11-03-2008, 04:18 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
When I started photography long time ago, I used UV filters to protect my lenses. I usually got them free as a kind of discount, when I bought a lens. One day, when scrutinizing slides from a nightly shooting trip in London, I noticed prominent flares of the city lights in many of my shots. That was the day I removed all the filters, even those by B+W or Heliopan...

But a year ago, I followed a lengthy thread (I think in the Tamron Adaptall forum), with loads of MTF measurements published on the behaviour of older lenses. There was some hard proof, that at least fast old glass (in this case the Tamron 300/2.8 B60), showed very clearly improved resolution when fully open, with a front filter attached! There is a simple explanation for that, but I reported that in an older thread already.

This MTF curves gave reason to revisit the topic of filters, for me. So I bought a whole bunch of differently sized Kenko Pro1 Digital UV filters (the same as the Hoyas, just under the domestic Kenko brand) and tried some with many of my lenses.

My personal findings are as follows:
- I cannot verify any image quality loss - well, simply no visible difference between a lens with filter attached or removed in standard shooting conditions.
- I very rarely have added reflections by the filter. When shooting against light sources or into the sun, I remove the filters, as in those extreme cases, there is a significant loss of contrast, due to a diffuse glow, produced by the filter.
- I remove filters for nighttime shots, as the many point like light sources of city lights, are very critical.

I recently spent two weeks on the Canary Islands with constantly high wind speeds and accordingly loads of sand and dust in the air and heavy seawater spray near the beaches and cliffs. Here the filters proved invaluable. With an unprotected lens, these conditions would have been very bad for the lens coatings. So I could keep on photographing, even if I could not even contemplate changing lenses at several occassions.

My personal finding is, that a high quality multi-coated filter will yield a loss of image quality (which it undoubetdly does), which I cannot discern. So the use of those filters in many standard situations and obviously in harsh environments is quite o.k. for me. Modern filters are obviously very much improved compared to filters from ten or twenty years ago (so it does IMHO make no sense, to buy cheap second-hand filters).
Whenever I have to deal with strong highlights, shooting against the light etc. I remove any filter. So, I work quite the other way round, as I did in the past, when I added a protective filter only under limited circumstances and removed it as a standard procedure. Today I have the filter on my lens as a standard, but remove it, whenever I see fit, to do so.

Ben
11-03-2008, 06:21 AM   #14
Pentaxian
fearview's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,067
me prefer naked when there is no possibility of water and dusk ruin my front element..
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!
filter, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, uv
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Protective Filter for Tamron 10-24 seachunk2 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 11-09-2010 01:19 AM
Good Protective Filter for Tamron 10-24 seachunk2 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 11-05-2010 11:34 AM
Anyone use a protective filer for their DA15mm? TheTenaciousOne Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-04-2010 09:37 AM
Protective Filters - Needed or Not Pentastic Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 26 12-06-2009 09:36 PM
Do you use a Protective Filter? mwcfire Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 13 03-05-2008 12:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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