"Protective" UV or skylight filters on lenses

Nesster · 04-08-2010, 10:56 AM

Re. stacking filters - I remove the UV or daylight filter when using a different one, e.g. a polarizer. To get enough density for long shutter speeds I will stack filters however.

On the topic of should you or should you not: testing for yourself is easy enough. You learn when there is an effect noticeable and important to you, and when there isn't. Thus educated, you are now in a better position than those who only go by hearsay and theory.

Personally, in most situations I don't see enough important difference, so I tend to have some lenses with and some without. And which lenses have the UV on will change over time... If I'm going to do night shooting I'll remove them, unless I'm at the shore, as that's one time I definitely get an important difference using a filter.

I also like using daylight filters as they add a subtle bit of warmth.

wallyb · 04-09-2010, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions.
A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare.

That has been proven wrong on many occasions, everyone knows it, it's common sense.

Ben_Edict · 04-09-2010, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions.
A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare.

This reflects my own experience. Degradation of IQ, as far as sharpness or contrast are concerned are not detectable, if I use high quality filters. But the added flareing and ghosting is anything but rare. It is all too common, even with a good lens hood, keeping away direct light from the filter surface.

Ben

bymy141 · 04-09-2010, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions.
A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare.

I think you are right.
Whiule there are a lot of opinions, it is also possible to find some facts.
Read this article: UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com
It supports your statement.

= Bert

Nass · 04-09-2010, 06:57 AM

Have a look at this article, it shows the flare that a UV filter can add. I don't use UV filters anymore at all, except where environmental protection demands it (sand, rain).

Tuner571 · 04-09-2010, 07:22 AM

I agree with most of the people here in saying that UV filters are not really needed. I used to use them until I noticed the decrease in IQ, so now I'm just extra careful with my lenses and all is fine.

uhhchriswho · 04-27-2010, 05:25 AM

Thank you guys so much for this great and informative post!

I just bought a K-x and I was about to purchase a couple expensive UV filters because I thought it would be for the best.
With the knowledge I've gained from here, you guys just saved me from wasting a couple of bills.

Thanks once again!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version)	dgaies	Sold Items	5	12-28-2009 07:58 AM
Does DA 18-250 need "thin" filters	bdphoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	08-29-2008 11:02 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM
"3rd Party" Cokin Filters?	germar	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	10-22-2007 12:48 AM

04-08-2010, 10:56 AM	#16
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Re. stacking filters - I remove the UV or daylight filter when using a different one, e.g. a polarizer. To get enough density for long shutter speeds I will stack filters however. On the topic of should you or should you not: testing for yourself is easy enough. You learn when there is an effect noticeable and important to you, and when there isn't. Thus educated, you are now in a better position than those who only go by hearsay and theory. Personally, in most situations I don't see enough important difference, so I tend to have some lenses with and some without. And which lenses have the UV on will change over time... If I'm going to do night shooting I'll remove them, unless I'm at the shore, as that's one time I definitely get an important difference using a filter. I also like using daylight filters as they add a subtle bit of warmth.

04-09-2010, 01:21 AM	#17
wallyb Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Untied States Photos: Albums Posts: 1,881	Originally posted by Wheatfield I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions. A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare. That has been proven wrong on many occasions, everyone knows it, it's common sense.

04-09-2010, 05:40 AM	#18
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Wheatfield I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions. A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare. This reflects my own experience. Degradation of IQ, as far as sharpness or contrast are concerned are not detectable, if I use high quality filters. But the added flareing and ghosting is anything but rare. It is all too common, even with a good lens hood, keeping away direct light from the filter surface. Ben

04-09-2010, 06:27 AM	#19
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	Originally posted by Wheatfield I'm pretty sure that this has been proven wrong on many occasions. A very high quality filter may have a negligible effect on image quality, but a mediocre filter can have a fairly serious effect on IQ, especially sharpness and contrast, and can also affect colour accuracy and can introduce flare. I think you are right. Whiule there are a lot of opinions, it is also possible to find some facts. Read this article: UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com It supports your statement. = Bert

04-09-2010, 06:57 AM	#20
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Have a look at this article, it shows the flare that a UV filter can add. I don't use UV filters anymore at all, except where environmental protection demands it (sand, rain).

04-09-2010, 07:22 AM	#21
Tuner571 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,549	I agree with most of the people here in saying that UV filters are not really needed. I used to use them until I noticed the decrease in IQ, so now I'm just extra careful with my lenses and all is fine.

04-27-2010, 05:25 AM	#22
uhhchriswho New Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 10	Thank you guys so much for this great and informative post! I just bought a K-x and I was about to purchase a couple expensive UV filters because I thought it would be for the best. With the knowledge I've gained from here, you guys just saved me from wasting a couple of bills. Thanks once again!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search