[TMc]

Hi everyone,

I'm moving across from the 35mm film world to digital (K10D). I've purchased a Pentax DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Lense and a UV Filter to fit it, because I have always whacked one on the front of my other (older) lenses and left it there.

I've since read that the coatings on the new lenses take care of UV light and that the filter isn't necessary. I still like the idea of protecting the lense, but am I being over cautious and possible affecting the picture quality with no real benefit gained?

Should I have picked up a Polarising lense and forgotten about the UV?

(By the way, the kit is on order, so haven't taken practice shots yet to compare difference with/without filter)

What's your thoughts?


Trevor.

[Mechan1k]

So far ... I have dound no difference in shots with my UV filter on the kit lens (and that's a DA 18-55mm) ... so i keep it on for protection more than anything.

[Marc Langille]

I've seen no image degradation at all, and I'm using very good filters on all my expensive lenses. I prefer the extra protection, especially for my irreplaceable FA* lenses.

Sample images can be found on my site.

Cheers,
Marc

[SpecialK]

Blah. Here's the best filter/no filter thread I know of.

Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

[and]

I have only seen one case where it was better to have a filter on, and that was with an old tamron lens, because the modern multi coating in the filter was a lot better than the coating on that lens (if it had any at all). In terms of IQ that is....

[TMc]

I've appreciated your opinions.

It was a good thread 'Specialk', Thanks.

It really seems to be a divided topic..you either use it or you don't....no one sits on the fence.

I've bought it, so I'll use it.....it doesn't sound like it's going to be particularly detrimental to the picture quality and I'll feel happier cleaning dust and crap of the filter rather then the direct lense surface.

Time will tell.

Talk to you again soon.

Trevor.

[volosong]

Picked up a 16-50 about two weeks ago, and because it was more than I wanted to pay, passed on the UV. A week later, went into the same shop and they had a 50-135 that I couldn't pass up. Since the price of that one was about a hundred bucks less that I'd figure it would go for, went ahead and got a filter for both lenses. Went with B+W F-Pro UV-Haze 010 filters.

I usually use filters for protection. Some of these lenses are very expensive, and it is cheap insurance. The only lenses I don't use a filter on are ones with a very large filter size, which makes the cost of the filter a significant percentage of the lens cost.

Earlier in the year, on a trip to Italy, I was in a situation where I was doing the "lens dance". You know the one...where you have one lens in one hand, the camera in another, and you are taking one lens off and putting another one on. My 50-200 slipped out of my hand, and even though it was never totally out of contact with my hand, it did "scrape" against a stone bench. The brass of the filter ring became scratched...but the lens itself escaped any damage. I was a 'believer' before, but am now fanatical about the issue.

[Tom M]

Whatever filter you put on your camera should always be checked when you first buy it.

Use newspaper to take the sharpest photo you can without a filter and then place your new filter on the lens and make sure you can still maintain sharpness and have no other color effects. As long as the filter maintains the sharpness and color it's fine.

Some instances light bounces around between the filter and lens face producing unwanted effects. Be aware of this situation and it's not a problem.

Ansel Adams said the following when asked about using protective filters, "protect the lens from what?"

[shutterdrone]

Ansel Adams said the following when asked about using protective filters, "protect the lens from what?"

I'm of the same mind - my lens cap stays on until I'm ready to shoot - start walking? It goes right back on. Things that keep happening to my lenses/camera - filters wouldn't do much for. (Moved my desk chair the other day, camera strap was over the arm - K10D + lens hits a concrete floor from a nearly 3' height. Barely a scratch. Better a tough camera than a tough filter. =)

I guess if you're shooting in an environment where stuff flies at you, they might be useful, but I've yet to have a situation where something was damaged and a filter would help. *crosses fingers*

!c

[SpecialK]

Earlier in the year, on a trip to Italy, I was in a situation where I was doing the "lens dance". You know the one...where you have one lens in one hand, the camera in another, and you are taking one lens off and putting another one on. My 50-200 slipped out of my hand, and even though it was never totally out of contact with my hand, it did "scrape" against a stone bench. The brass of the filter ring became scratched...but the lens itself escaped any damage. I was a 'believer' before, but am now fanatical about the issue.

Hmmm,..a lens cap or lens hood would have done as much, I think.

As noted in the thread I linked, I do and don't use filters - 10-17 not possible, 12-24 no, 18-50 did at first now no, 50-200 no, 70-300 yes. Shrug.

[hinckc]

I do have UV filters for most of my lenses, but don't use them to keep my lens safe, except in the most dangerous of scenarios. Like when sticking my camera out the moving car window (protects from bugs, rocks), or on a boat where I expect some sea spray.

If you're using a filter to keep your lens safe, why don't you instead apply the same amount of money you spent on your filter for an insurance policy on your lens. The insurance policy will probably cost a very similar amount (albeit yearly) as a good filter, and _definitely_ won't negatively impact your image quality. Plus, anything that's likely to damage your front element is likely to damage the rest of the lens, too. With the insurance policy, you get a brand new lens, not a safe front element with damaged barrel.

I try to only use filters for effect, and even then, only when the effect isn't easy to apply in post process. For instance, an ND filter can give you slower shutter speeds than otherwise possible. That's hard (or impossible) to do in post process.

Can anyone recommend an insurance company that sells a policy on lenses?

-Chris

[imadethis]

If the world was without dust, sand, water, and gravity, I would use my lenses without a UV filter because lenses are engineered to work at their best straight out of the box. To answer the OP, specifically to the DA lenses and most newer lenses, they have "digital coatings" to protect against reflections off the sensor and UV.

Now placing an element in front of a lens will change its optical quality. What it all boils down to is weighing the benefits versus cost of using a UV filter to protect your lens versus how much image quality you lose, so finding the right UV filter with a minimum impact on IQ is our goal.

By using a poorly engineered filter, we can lose contrast, color, and increase flare turning our high quality lens into a low quality lens. Images will suffer this loss in contrast which leaves us spending time post processing photos.

From my experience, multicoated filters from certain manufacturers tend to help with many of the problems listed above. I have done tests on several companies on my site and will be adding a Hoya Super HMC to the list when I receive it. Click to read on...

-imt