UV filters: your opinions please!

Finn · 03-26-2007, 02:43 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

I finally dove into the deep end and ordered an FA 31mm ltd, so I have a good couple of months

to ruminate on this question before I get to use the lens:

Am I stupid to use a UV filter because it defeats the purpose of an $800 lens, or am I stupid not to when it is a cheap way to protect my investment?

People seem to holler back and forth a lot on this, but I have never seen any real evidence for either side. So please, holler away

but if anyone has a lead on DATA (I am a scientist, after all

), that would be most appreciated!

Thanks!

roy · 03-26-2007, 02:53 PM

do you think a UV filter would have helped here ???

benjikan · 03-26-2007, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Finn

I finally dove into the deep end and ordered an FA 31mm ltd, so I have a good couple of months

to ruminate on this question before I get to use the lens:

Am I stupid to use a UV filter because it defeats the purpose of an $800 lens, or am I stupid not to when it is a cheap way to protect my investment?

People seem to holler back and forth a lot on this, but I have never seen any real evidence for either side. So please, holler away

but if anyone has a lead on DATA (I am a scientist, after all

), that would be most appreciated!

Thanks!

Get a Pro Hoya UV filter. I use them on all my good glass....The ONLY time I don't is on my Limited lenses as they are all recessed and always have the lens hoods on. They are always used in studio and never exposed to the elements. If I were to use them outdoors I would purchase filters for them.

**SCGushue** · 03-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Finn,

This is a chicken or egg thing with people and seems to always raise the dander on someone's hackles.

I bought B&W filters for all my limiteds. A Hoya Pro is great too, but I really do not think you have to spend that much. If I am correct the Hoya Pro's are thinner filters 4mm vs 5mm. The Hoya HMC Super has the same exact coating process as the Pro series (five layers of multicoating front and back) only the ring that holds the filter is 5mm.

My lenses are always outside (except when they are not

) and the filter always makes sense. Last summer my DA 12-24 slipped out of my hands one day and scraped against a rock ruining the filter but saving the $800.00 lens. So, you be the judge. BTW, if filters suck so much life from a lens why use polarizer's or anything else?

Be wise...put a filter on it. A good one. If you can't afford a good one (you shouldn't have bought that 31

) get a $20.00 one and take it off when you are going to shoot that Pulitzer Prize winning photo.

Another reason to consider filters is that there is so much schmootz outside and it has a propensity for attaching itself to the front element. Even with 30 years of cleaning lenses...doing it right is a very time consuming task frought with danger. If you put a good filter on the front element you reduce the need for inadvertant dameage to the lens.

One further point. A good filter can cost more than a modest lens. The filter should be treated with the same care as your limited or any other highend piece of photographic equipment.

So, you have my permission to put a filter on it

Stephen

Last edited by SCGushue; 03-26-2007 at 05:08 PM. Reason: text

leaton · 03-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Are you guys telling me that there is a problem with a cheap filter?
I never thought much about it, and have never paid more than the lowest price I could find. To me, it's just protection and nothing more, so I have never given it much thought about the optics of it, since I really don't care if it blocks UV or not.

Rolly · 03-26-2007, 05:52 PM

This is a comment re. film use.
Using the UV filter makes a HUGE difference to the quality of images made on transparency in situations where the ambient light is high in UV. e.g. high altitudes, sea side, in shade on a sunny day, where flash is the primary light source( some units have a very high UV output ) and under the hole in the ozone layer.
Optical quality is a real consideration, especially where you're stacking filters for particular effects and/or when shooting against the light.

Dana G · 03-26-2007, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by leaton

Are you guys telling me that there is a problem with a cheap filter?

Yes, the same problem with a cheap lens. Flare, ghosting, and other nasties.

Buy a good MULTICOATED Hoya or equivalent filter. It's the front element of your lens system, so why put a cheap filter on your fancy Limited lens?

Here's my take: In the studio, usually I feel that it's OK to take off the filter.

But once, covering an event (which I no longer do, due to MS), I fell down a flight of stairs. The glass in front of the very expensive lens was cracked!!

On further inspection, I'd smashed the filter and was able to dig the filter remains out of the threads of the lens. That convinced me that using a (good quality) filter is worth it.

The lens came out better than I did from the situation!

Finn · 03-26-2007, 06:40 PM

Thanks for all the helpful comments -- now I have filters to obsess over...

WildSioux · 03-26-2007, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

Get a Pro Hoya UV filter. I use them on all my good glass....

Yes, this is what I use too. I got mine from Camera Filters The Filter Connection 2filter.com for Hoya Digital filters, Hoya Pro 1, Tiffen 4x4 Camera Filters, B+W filters and Canon Inks

BTW Finn...I am in IA too!

Edvinas · 03-26-2007, 08:28 PM

Hoya multicoated filters are very good optical quality but I wouldn't go for Hoya multicoated filters as "protective" filters.

Why? Because Hoya coating is difficult to clean and it is easy to damage. I think it is very important characteristics of a "protective" filter.

Go for filters which have hard to damage, easy to clean coatings. One of the options could be B&W MRC filters.

SpecialK · 03-26-2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

if filters suck so much life from a lens why use polarizer's or anything else?

Because polarization is one of the filter effects not easily, if at all, producible in Photoshop.

Here's a tedious filter-use thread.
Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

Jonas B · 03-27-2007, 04:50 AM

You don't need our opinions. You need to find out what way you want to have it. Many get a bit upset about filters, just like they can get a bit upset if you claim the FA31 shows some CA.
I was in your situation and instead of listening to more or less well formed arguments I decided to run a test.
I posted it over at DPR. The text is there. It decribes the test situation and contain contrast measure figures and other things:
Home Test: UV-filters - good or bad?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The pictures are since long gone but I uploaded two of them for you here:
FA31:
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/pentaxforums/enstakabilder/9FA31_compilation_filter.jpg
FA35:
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/pentaxforums/enstakabilder/9FA35_filter_compilation.jpg
All pictures are taken with a *ist DS, a 6MP 1.5 crop camera.

In the end I decided to leave the B+W UV MRC Pro on the FA35 all the time and remove it occasionally. For the FA31 I decided the other way; no filter unless walking in the harbour, at the sea, and so on.

There is no yes or no covering everything. Irritating, but true. - regards,

joele · 03-27-2007, 06:43 AM

If the front element is well recessed (like on the DA70 with the screw in hood) I don't use a filter... If the front element is extremely exposed (even with the hood attached), like on my Sigma 10-20 I will use a UV filter...

I prefer B&W MRC filters..

FotoPete · 03-27-2007, 08:53 AM

When I got my Sigma 24-135mm from Cameta, I looked for filters and I was damn shocked. Had I purchase one of those Hoya Pro or whatever pro filter, I could have easily doubled the cost of my lens. I trolled around on ebay a bit and found a $10 multicoated 77mm UV filter. After reading a nice review on the rather arbitrary effect of the $10 vs. the pro filters, I went ahead and bought it.

I did a test a while back and took a photo at the sun with and w/o the filter and the difference was really quite minimal. Just one extra flare circle packed beside the pre-existing one. If you are on a budget and just want a decent filter to protect your lens without breaking the bank, check out American Eagle Cameras on ebay. They specialize in small camera accessories like filters, caps, etc. and are all buy-it-now.

eBay: 77MM UV FILTER / NEW / S & W BRAND (item 150106241996 end time Apr-02-07 09:36:45 PDT)

Very cheap. Most of their stuff is like $10 and under. (Just make sure your filter is "MC" or "Multicoated" haha)

mattdm · 03-27-2007, 09:35 AM

So, if something were to smash up the front element of a lens, how much would that cost to fix?

03-26-2007, 02:43 PM	#1
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	UV filters: your opinions please! Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. I finally dove into the deep end and ordered an FA 31mm ltd, so I have a good couple of months to ruminate on this question before I get to use the lens: Am I stupid to use a UV filter because it defeats the purpose of an $800 lens, or am I stupid not to when it is a cheap way to protect my investment? People seem to holler back and forth a lot on this, but I have never seen any real evidence for either side. So please, holler away but if anyone has a lead on DATA (I am a scientist, after all ), that would be most appreciated! Thanks!

03-26-2007, 04:45 PM	#3
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Get It! Originally posted by Finn I finally dove into the deep end and ordered an FA 31mm ltd, so I have a good couple of months to ruminate on this question before I get to use the lens: Am I stupid to use a UV filter because it defeats the purpose of an $800 lens, or am I stupid not to when it is a cheap way to protect my investment? People seem to holler back and forth a lot on this, but I have never seen any real evidence for either side. So please, holler away but if anyone has a lead on DATA (I am a scientist, after all ), that would be most appreciated! Thanks! Get a Pro Hoya UV filter. I use them on all my good glass....The ONLY time I don't is on my Limited lenses as they are all recessed and always have the lens hoods on. They are always used in studio and never exposed to the elements. If I were to use them outdoors I would purchase filters for them.

03-27-2007, 04:50 AM	#12
Jonas B Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Göteborg, Sweden Posts: 810	You don't need our opinions. You need to find out what way you want to have it. Many get a bit upset about filters, just like they can get a bit upset if you claim the FA31 shows some CA. I was in your situation and instead of listening to more or less well formed arguments I decided to run a test. I posted it over at DPR. The text is there. It decribes the test situation and contain contrast measure figures and other things: Home Test: UV-filters - good or bad?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review The pictures are since long gone but I uploaded two of them for you here: FA31: http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/pentaxforums/enstakabilder/9FA31_compilation_filter.jpg FA35: http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/pentaxforums/enstakabilder/9FA35_filter_compilation.jpg All pictures are taken with a ist DS, a 6MP 1.5 crop camera. In the end I decided to leave the B+W UV MRC Pro on the FA35 all the time and remove it occasionally. For the FA31 I decided the other way; no filter unless walking in the harbour, at the sea, and so on. There is no yes or no covering everything. Irritating, but true. - regards, Last edited by Jonas B; 03-27-2007 at 04:53 AM. Reason: spelling*

03-27-2007, 09:35 AM	#15
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Front element repair cost? So, if something were to smash up the front element of a lens, how much would that cost to fix?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Trade: My 77mm filters for your 72mm filters (CONUS)	loveisageless	Sold Items	0	10-02-2010 12:29 AM
To use UV filters or Not to use UV filters?HELP NEEDED	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-20-2010 04:50 PM
Opinions please.	Raybo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	10-18-2008 09:56 PM
Opinions Please	Slick	Photo Critique	5	01-16-2008 12:46 PM

03-26-2007, 02:53 PM	#2
roy Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: D/FW area, Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,710	do you think a UV filter would have helped here ???

03-26-2007, 05:08 PM	#4
SCGushue Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,449	Finn, This is a chicken or egg thing with people and seems to always raise the dander on someone's hackles. I bought B&W filters for all my limiteds. A Hoya Pro is great too, but I really do not think you have to spend that much. If I am correct the Hoya Pro's are thinner filters 4mm vs 5mm. The Hoya HMC Super has the same exact coating process as the Pro series (five layers of multicoating front and back) only the ring that holds the filter is 5mm. My lenses are always outside (except when they are not ) and the filter always makes sense. Last summer my DA 12-24 slipped out of my hands one day and scraped against a rock ruining the filter but saving the $800.00 lens. So, you be the judge. BTW, if filters suck so much life from a lens why use polarizer's or anything else? Be wise...put a filter on it. A good one. If you can't afford a good one (you shouldn't have bought that 31 ) get a $20.00 one and take it off when you are going to shoot that Pulitzer Prize winning photo. Another reason to consider filters is that there is so much schmootz outside and it has a propensity for attaching itself to the front element. Even with 30 years of cleaning lenses...doing it right is a very time consuming task frought with danger. If you put a good filter on the front element you reduce the need for inadvertant dameage to the lens. One further point. A good filter can cost more than a modest lens. The filter should be treated with the same care as your limited or any other highend piece of photographic equipment. So, you have my permission to put a filter on it Stephen Last edited by SCGushue; 03-26-2007 at 05:08 PM. Reason: text

03-26-2007, 05:32 PM	#5
leaton Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Buford Georgia Photos: Gallery Posts: 91	Are you guys telling me that there is a problem with a cheap filter? I never thought much about it, and have never paid more than the lowest price I could find. To me, it's just protection and nothing more, so I have never given it much thought about the optics of it, since I really don't care if it blocks UV or not.

03-26-2007, 05:52 PM	#6
Rolly Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 295	This is a comment re. film use. Using the UV filter makes a HUGE difference to the quality of images made on transparency in situations where the ambient light is high in UV. e.g. high altitudes, sea side, in shade on a sunny day, where flash is the primary light source( some units have a very high UV output ) and under the hole in the ozone layer. Optical quality is a real consideration, especially where you're stacking filters for particular effects and/or when shooting against the light.

03-26-2007, 06:25 PM	#7
Dana G Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Masachusetts Posts: 243	Originally posted by leaton Are you guys telling me that there is a problem with a cheap filter? Yes, the same problem with a cheap lens. Flare, ghosting, and other nasties. Buy a good MULTICOATED Hoya or equivalent filter. It's the front element of your lens system, so why put a cheap filter on your fancy Limited lens? Here's my take: In the studio, usually I feel that it's OK to take off the filter. But once, covering an event (which I no longer do, due to MS), I fell down a flight of stairs. The glass in front of the very expensive lens was cracked!! On further inspection, I'd smashed the filter and was able to dig the filter remains out of the threads of the lens. That convinced me that using a (good quality) filter is worth it. The lens came out better than I did from the situation!

03-26-2007, 06:40 PM	#8
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056 Original Poster	Thanks for all the helpful comments -- now I have filters to obsess over...

03-26-2007, 08:28 PM	#9
WildSioux Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: FL Posts: 103	Originally posted by benjikan Get a Pro Hoya UV filter. I use them on all my good glass.... Yes, this is what I use too. I got mine from Camera Filters The Filter Connection 2filter.com for Hoya Digital filters, Hoya Pro 1, Tiffen 4x4 Camera Filters, B+W filters and Canon Inks BTW Finn...I am in IA too!

03-26-2007, 08:28 PM	#10
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Hoya multicoated filters are very good optical quality but I wouldn't go for Hoya multicoated filters as "protective" filters. Why? Because Hoya coating is difficult to clean and it is easy to damage. I think it is very important characteristics of a "protective" filter. Go for filters which have hard to damage, easy to clean coatings. One of the options could be B&W MRC filters.

03-26-2007, 08:32 PM	#11
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: if filters suck so much life from a lens why use polarizer's or anything else? Because polarization is one of the filter effects not easily, if at all, producible in Photoshop. Here's a tedious filter-use thread. Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

03-27-2007, 06:43 AM	#13
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	If the front element is well recessed (like on the DA70 with the screw in hood) I don't use a filter... If the front element is extremely exposed (even with the hood attached), like on my Sigma 10-20 I will use a UV filter... I prefer B&W MRC filters..

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2007, 08:53 AM	#14
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	When I got my Sigma 24-135mm from Cameta, I looked for filters and I was damn shocked. Had I purchase one of those Hoya Pro or whatever pro filter, I could have easily doubled the cost of my lens. I trolled around on ebay a bit and found a $10 multicoated 77mm UV filter. After reading a nice review on the rather arbitrary effect of the $10 vs. the pro filters, I went ahead and bought it. I did a test a while back and took a photo at the sun with and w/o the filter and the difference was really quite minimal. Just one extra flare circle packed beside the pre-existing one. If you are on a budget and just want a decent filter to protect your lens without breaking the bank, check out American Eagle Cameras on ebay. They specialize in small camera accessories like filters, caps, etc. and are all buy-it-now. eBay: 77MM UV FILTER / NEW / S & W BRAND (item 150106241996 end time Apr-02-07 09:36:45 PDT) Very cheap. Most of their stuff is like $10 and under. (Just make sure your filter is "MC" or "Multicoated" haha)