Filter or not?

mischivo · 07-22-2009, 01:02 PM

Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too.

séamuis · 07-22-2009, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by mischivo

Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too.

someone has a personal problem.

Gooshin · 07-22-2009, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

someone has a personal problem.

t stops

10char

séamuis · 07-22-2009, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

t stops

10char

t stops are rather irrelevant. whats your point? and what does it have to do with the above posters rather asinine comment?

Gooshin · 07-22-2009, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

t stops are rather irrelevant. whats your point? and what does it have to do with the above posters rather asinine comment?

his comment is fine

and t-stops have to do with your claim that UV filters offer no image impact, when even the best of lenses consume light, so much so that they bothered to create the concept of t-stops in the first place.

acarpov · 07-22-2009, 01:53 PM

Ok guys thank you
i got everybody's point ! No need to continue.

jimH · 07-22-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

if a twig harms your coating, you have a pretty shitty lens right there.

Must have some pretty soft twigs in your part of the world, so it's your choice.

jimH

simico · 07-23-2009, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by séamuis

there is no evidence that I am aware of that even suggests that a modern multi-coated filter will 'degrade' image quality.

Just in this forum I've read dozens of "why isn't my lens sharp enough" topics where removing the (expensive pro) UV filter solved the issue.

On the other hand there is no evidence that I'm aware of that even suggests that UV filters do any good. The front glass of modern lenses is tough enough.

séamuis · 07-23-2009, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

his comment is fine

and t-stops have to do with your claim that UV filters offer no image impact, when even the best of lenses consume light, so much so that they bothered to create the concept of t-stops in the first place.

his comment was asinine. right up your alley. t stops have to do with light loss. I said very clearly that some light loss will occur. there is a big difference between losing light and degrading the image, as you suggested. thus, t stops are irrelevant. not that it would matter anyway as the amount of loss is so minuscule that exposure is virtually unaffected. I have an Asahi Pentax 'Ghostless' UV filter on my auto-takumar 55mm and there has been absolutely no noticeable degradation of the image by its use on film or digital (even pixel peeping) and we are taliing about a non multi-coated (curved) filter from the late 60's.

Kguru · 07-23-2009, 07:54 AM

Everyone has presented a valid point, here's my middleground opinion: Given the choice of having to wipe/clean a valuable lens or just the filter no doubt 9 out of 10 people would choose the less risky latter. Otoh a filter does affect image quality mainly in reduced contrast situations. My balanced approach is to have a filter on my two most valuable lenses 31 & 77 (not for the larger zooms though) but take the filter off when shooting in low light.

k100d · 07-23-2009, 08:51 AM

my ghetto lens hood of cheap filter rings unscrewed itself off my fa43 and rubbed against the uv filter, i'm happy i'm replacing the filter and not the lens. my fancy B+W MRC filter i might add which wasn't actually too expensive. and to stick up for B+W, the brass rings they use are just class.

i keep a UV filter on the FA31 all the time b/c it acts kind of like a hood, makes it easy
offers a bit more physical protection.

Dom · 07-23-2009, 10:24 AM

I only use a UV filter if I know I'm going to be in a harsh environment sand storm, down a old mine or somewhere else I shouldn't really be. The rest of the time no filter.

Bart · 07-23-2009, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Kguru

...Given the choice of having to wipe/clean a valuable lens or just the filter no doubt 9 out of 10 people would choose the less risky latter...

Guess I'm one of those 9

B+W MRC, not yet up to 20

and since I don't see any sharpness issues, I'm happy.

Marc Sabatella · 07-24-2009, 10:58 AM

Wow, this is the most heated version of this topic I've seen. Makes me just want sit back and break out the popcorn.

Anyhow, in case anyone finds it relevant, or wants to correct me, here's my partially-informed perspective:

UV filters once served a real optical purpose in terms of cutting down on flare. That was in the days before lenses had good coatings themselves. So people with a long background in film photography have a justifiable reason for the impression that UV filters help in some way with regards to IQ.

Sicne the days of modern lens coatings, UV filters don't help IQ, nor the lenses in any danger from UV radiation, so they aren't protecting the lens in that way. But of course, they do help protect a lens against scratches. So do hoods, although not as much. Neither protects against dropping, theft, or much else, so I personally find $40/year to insure *all* of my photo equipment against all risks worldwide a far better investment in terms of protecting my gear, but YMMV.

séamuis · 07-24-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

UV filters once served a real optical purpose in terms of cutting down on flare

I was under the impression they were for reducing haze or fogginess. not for reducing flare. flare is caused by strong contrast/light typically being 'scattered' within the lens elements. where as haze and fogginess is cause by ultraviloet radiation. multi-coating is designed to reduce the possibility of light scattering. not necessarily for blocking ultraviolet light from entering the lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax and Albinar 2x TCs, 2 Cokin A filter sets, 49mm Filter and Macro tubes	pxpaulx	Sold Items	15	02-11-2010 09:09 PM
UV filter and polarized filter	mba1971	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	11-09-2009 04:23 PM
Infrared Filter help? Bad filter and technique	Peter Zack	Photographic Technique	13	10-16-2007 06:52 AM

07-22-2009, 01:02 PM	#16
mischivo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 397	Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too.

07-22-2009, 01:10 PM	#17
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by mischivo Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too. someone has a personal problem.

07-22-2009, 01:17 PM	#18
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by séamuis someone has a personal problem. t stops 10char

07-22-2009, 01:34 PM	#19
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Gooshin t stops 10char t stops are rather irrelevant. whats your point? and what does it have to do with the above posters rather asinine comment?

07-22-2009, 01:36 PM	#20
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by séamuis t stops are rather irrelevant. whats your point? and what does it have to do with the above posters rather asinine comment? his comment is fine and t-stops have to do with your claim that UV filters offer no image impact, when even the best of lenses consume light, so much so that they bothered to create the concept of t-stops in the first place.

07-22-2009, 01:53 PM	#21
acarpov Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: brooklyn Posts: 74 Original Poster	Ok guys thank you i got everybody's point ! No need to continue.

07-22-2009, 02:58 PM	#22
jimH Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,771	Originally posted by Gooshin if a twig harms your coating, you have a pretty shitty lens right there. Must have some pretty soft twigs in your part of the world, so it's your choice. jimH

07-23-2009, 01:05 AM	#23
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by séamuis there is no evidence that I am aware of that even suggests that a modern multi-coated filter will 'degrade' image quality. Just in this forum I've read dozens of "why isn't my lens sharp enough" topics where removing the (expensive pro) UV filter solved the issue. On the other hand there is no evidence that I'm aware of that even suggests that UV filters do any good. The front glass of modern lenses is tough enough.

07-23-2009, 06:02 AM	#24
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Gooshin his comment is fine and t-stops have to do with your claim that UV filters offer no image impact, when even the best of lenses consume light, so much so that they bothered to create the concept of t-stops in the first place. his comment was asinine. right up your alley. t stops have to do with light loss. I said very clearly that some light loss will occur. there is a big difference between losing light and degrading the image, as you suggested. thus, t stops are irrelevant. not that it would matter anyway as the amount of loss is so minuscule that exposure is virtually unaffected. I have an Asahi Pentax 'Ghostless' UV filter on my auto-takumar 55mm and there has been absolutely no noticeable degradation of the image by its use on film or digital (even pixel peeping) and we are taliing about a non multi-coated (curved) filter from the late 60's.

07-23-2009, 07:54 AM	#25
Kguru Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth - WestAust Posts: 602	Everyone has presented a valid point, here's my middleground opinion: Given the choice of having to wipe/clean a valuable lens or just the filter no doubt 9 out of 10 people would choose the less risky latter. Otoh a filter does affect image quality mainly in reduced contrast situations. My balanced approach is to have a filter on my two most valuable lenses 31 & 77 (not for the larger zooms though) but take the filter off when shooting in low light.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2009, 08:51 AM	#26
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	my ghetto lens hood of cheap filter rings unscrewed itself off my fa43 and rubbed against the uv filter, i'm happy i'm replacing the filter and not the lens. my fancy B+W MRC filter i might add which wasn't actually too expensive. and to stick up for B+W, the brass rings they use are just class. i keep a UV filter on the FA31 all the time b/c it acts kind of like a hood, makes it easy offers a bit more physical protection.

07-23-2009, 10:24 AM	#27
Dom Guest	I only use a UV filter if I know I'm going to be in a harsh environment sand storm, down a old mine or somewhere else I shouldn't really be. The rest of the time no filter.

07-23-2009, 10:29 AM	#28
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Originally posted by Kguru ...Given the choice of having to wipe/clean a valuable lens or just the filter no doubt 9 out of 10 people would choose the less risky latter... Guess I'm one of those 9 B+W MRC, not yet up to 20 and since I don't see any sharpness issues, I'm happy.

07-24-2009, 10:58 AM	#29
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Wow, this is the most heated version of this topic I've seen. Makes me just want sit back and break out the popcorn. Anyhow, in case anyone finds it relevant, or wants to correct me, here's my partially-informed perspective: UV filters once served a real optical purpose in terms of cutting down on flare. That was in the days before lenses had good coatings themselves. So people with a long background in film photography have a justifiable reason for the impression that UV filters help in some way with regards to IQ. Sicne the days of modern lens coatings, UV filters don't help IQ, nor the lenses in any danger from UV radiation, so they aren't protecting the lens in that way. But of course, they do help protect a lens against scratches. So do hoods, although not as much. Neither protects against dropping, theft, or much else, so I personally find $40/year to insure all of my photo equipment against all risks worldwide a far better investment in terms of protecting my gear, but YMMV.

07-24-2009, 11:16 AM	#30
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Quote: UV filters once served a real optical purpose in terms of cutting down on flare I was under the impression they were for reducing haze or fogginess. not for reducing flare. flare is caused by strong contrast/light typically being 'scattered' within the lens elements. where as haze and fogginess is cause by ultraviloet radiation. multi-coating is designed to reduce the possibility of light scattering. not necessarily for blocking ultraviolet light from entering the lens.