Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-14-2011, 10:53 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
I wasn't going to comment whether the Op should or shouldn't get a UV filter as that wasn't the question posted.

I do second Marcs' post though, I feel sometime people forget the Camera is a tool, my FA 31 isn't treated roughly but it isn't treated like some precious jewel either, its not there to show off its there to shoot with, its gotta earn its keep!

09-15-2011, 12:02 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
dcmsox2004's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: rhode island
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,331
fwiw.... you can get a heliopan uv filter, slim, on 'that auction site' for about 40 bucks or so.... also check out b+w filters..... superior quality brass mounts, so won't bind on the lens... also, they are both known for nonpareil quality glass with excellent light transmission....which equals excellent image quality... imho, very little degradation.... btw... since the 15mm prime is only a 49mm filter size.. you should be able to purchase one of these at a reasonable price, new or used... check b+h photo.. excellent pricing, fast shipping, may even have a used one to boot....
i do subscribe to always using a lens hood, to block out stray rays and to protect the front element.... best of luck, dave m
09-16-2011, 11:13 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonto Quote
I wasn't going to comment whether the Op should or shouldn't get a UV filter as that wasn't the question posted.
Why not pass on as much knowledge as possible on the subject?
09-16-2011, 06:44 PM - 1 Like   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,149
While the IQ effect of a UVa may not be obvious in most photos, some lighting situations can show the effects, as internal reflections can be more obvious, depending on the lens front element shape, distance to the filter, etc. There is some effect in almost all cases. Here's a comparson of a light source in a dark room, but the light was not shining at the lens at all. This is K-5 with kit 18-55 lens, with and without multicoated UVa
Name:  With multicoated UVa.jpg
Views: 397
Size:  255.4 KB
Name:  Removed UVa.jpg
Views: 360
Size:  269.6 KB

09-18-2011, 03:14 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Spock's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 419
QuoteOriginally posted by TomB_tx Quote
While the IQ effect of a UVa may not be obvious in most photos, some lighting situations can show the effects, as internal reflections can be more obvious, depending on the lens front element shape, distance to the filter, etc. There is some effect in almost all cases. Here's a comparson of a light source in a dark room, but the light was not shining at the lens at all. This is K-5 with kit 18-55 lens, with and without multicoated UVa
Attachment 103791
Attachment 103792
Interesting.

I don't know what filter you're using but all I can say is that using Hoya's Super HMC coated uv filters (12 layers on both sides) I have never had a flare even 1/10 as bad as in this example.

Here is a test that gives a result more like what I'd expect using a premium rather than budget filter. While there is difference with or without the hoya super HMC filter in the images below, it's minor enough not be be of concern:

Without filter


With filter


http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=113&roz=16

Last edited by Spock; 09-18-2011 at 03:26 AM.
09-19-2011, 03:58 AM   #21
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4
Kenko Zeta are very very good
09-19-2011, 08:31 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
UV filter will do nothing to your image then degrade the quality, why not get a haze filter for example?
09-19-2011, 04:38 PM   #23
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
The UV filters have one great purpose: to keep afloat camera stores. Like insurances.

09-19-2011, 08:16 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Spock's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 419
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
The UV filters have one great purpose: ..... Like insurances.
Yes, uv filters are cheap insurance for lenses.

As for degrading image quality, I've tried with and without filters and can't see it being a problem myself.

If it was was really, really important to capture an image as perfectly as possible, or if flare was really an issue, you could always remove the filter.
09-20-2011, 05:31 AM   #25
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Spock Quote
Yes, uv filters are cheap insurance for lenses.

As for degrading image quality, I've tried with and without filters and can't see it being a problem myself.

If it was was really, really important to capture an image as perfectly as possible, or if flare was really an issue, you could always remove the filter.
I'm not against filters, I have a few myself. But they are IMHO unnecessary, even to protect lenses, only in a few special cases (dusty, salted, etc environments) I feel they may be useful. In bright daylight I'm often using a polarizer anyway and in this case I don't bring any UV filter because it's a pain to carry them, removing, putting, etc. The more I'm into photography the more I realize that some accessories are actually useless, and the less you carry the better. And the other issue with UV filters is that the good ones (multicoated) are quite expensive. For a good place to buy the good ones at a good price: Camera Filters, B+W, Hoya, Daisee, NISSIN Low prices on Maxsaver , Sales Tax and Shipping are Free I usually buy the Kenko Pro that are rebadge of the similar Hoya but usually cheaper.
09-20-2011, 05:41 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Spock Quote
If it was was really, really important to capture an image as perfectly as possible, or if flare was really an issue, you could always remove the filter.
Then why get one in the first place?

And with the coatings we have for decades there is no real need for a filter to protect the front element, i believe the front element is strong than a thin piece of glass where your filter is made out.

Just use a hood if you want extra protection, it also helps your image quality.
09-20-2011, 06:39 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by Spock Quote
Interesting.

I don't know what filter you're using but all I can say is that using Hoya's Super HMC coated uv filters (12 layers on both sides) I have never had a flare even 1/10 as bad as in this example.

Here is a test that gives a result more like what I'd expect using a premium rather than budget filter. While there is difference with or without the hoya super HMC filter in the images below, it's minor enough not be be of concern:

Without filter


With filter
I don't think one can post a single example where a filter hasn't made flare worse and put forward as a fact that a good filter won't produce flare.
09-20-2011, 06:41 AM   #28
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
One should always use the supplied hood as it is part of the optical design. A good UV filter is cost-effective insurance. If you have ever broken the front element of a lens, you would know. The only lenses where I so nor use a protective filter are macro lenses where the front element is recess protected.
09-20-2011, 06:45 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
A good UV filter is cost-effective insurance. If you have ever broken the front element of a lens, you would know.
If there was so much force applied that the front element broke then i'm highly doubtful a thin filter would make a difference...
Just look at the youtube video, he is even using the back side of a hammer, i'm now very curious what you did to your lens...

Filters simply aren't designed to take an impact, i don't know who started saying that?

Last edited by Anvh; 09-20-2011 at 06:51 AM.
09-20-2011, 07:25 AM   #30
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Filters simply aren't designed to take an impact, i don't know who started saying that?
The Hoya HD filters are made to be very resistant. But don't try to convince people that UV are not needed. It's their money after all and it makes filter makers and camera shops happy. And it's not completely useless. Just superfluous. In many years of photography I never scratched a front element once. But it also depends on how you're using and taking care of your gear.
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!
camera, pentax help
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:53 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