[KjetilH]

The UV filter is actually made of glass, not steel. Something to think about, it is comparable to taping a pillow in front of your car.


On cheap lenses, I wouldn't bother. If I had a more expensive one, I would probably buy a filter just to be sure, even if I didn't use it all the time (haven't mashed the camera into the ground yet).

[Tom S.]

Filter users, do you also have one of those phone cases that the phone never comes out of? Oh, I hate those things. Same premise, really.

Funny you should ask that. After smashing the screen on my Ipaq while carrying it in my pocket, I do indeed have an aluminum case on it's replacement as well as my Treo 700wx. Although the Ipaq was covered by insurance, the data on it was not. Same thing applies to the Treo, hence the use of cases on both. BTW, both cases also show scars that vouch for their effectiveness. In any event, my camera lenses are not covered by insurance.

Once bitten is twice shy.

[simonkit]

I initially started out using UV filters all the time on all my lenses... I've recently decided its not always necessary however & only ever use then when in harsh environments (mainly coastal where sea spray is around)

simon

[Zeroset]

Lot of good points made in this thread so far, thank you. Haven't decided yet how I'll go about using the filters, but this discussion is giving me a better idea/assessment of their use/purpose.

Had another related question. I've been using one of those Lenspen lens cleaners. But it just occurred to me the other day that maybe those are designed just to be used on the actual lens surface because of the lens's special coating (right?). And that maybe it's not the best thing to use if I'm actually cleaning the filters, and not the lens itself directly. Thoughts? Should I be using some type of glass cleaner instead of a specifically-designed lens cleaner?

[nakey]

Lot of good points made in this thread so far, thank you. Haven't decided yet how I'll go about using the filters, but this discussion is giving me a better idea/assessment of their use/purpose.

Had another related question. I've been using one of those Lenspen lens cleaners. But it just occurred to me the other day that maybe those are designed just to be used on the actual lens surface because of the lens's special coating (right?). And that maybe it's not the best thing to use if I'm actually cleaning the filters, and not the lens itself directly. Thoughts? Should I be using some type of glass cleaner instead of a specifically-designed lens cleaner?

i'm happy to use them on filters, and i did a few nights ago

[macbeth]

imo, it's USELESS AGAINS'T THE USUAL DUST OR FINGERPRINTS if you're using one to make your lens last longer.

Now if you go in places where the air or the environment have alot of let's say sand? metal particles?, using an UV filter is wise.

otherwise it's useless. It won't effect the quality of most of your pictures but once in a while it will ghost etc. If that happen on a shot that would have been a zinger, you'll be quite pissed.

[Tom S.]

Lot of good points made in this thread so far, thank you. Haven't decided yet how I'll go about using the filters, but this discussion is giving me a better idea/assessment of their use/purpose.

Had another related question. I've been using one of those Lenspen lens cleaners. But it just occurred to me the other day that maybe those are designed just to be used on the actual lens surface because of the lens's special coating (right?). And that maybe it's not the best thing to use if I'm actually cleaning the filters, and not the lens itself directly. Thoughts? Should I be using some type of glass cleaner instead of a specifically-designed lens cleaner?

A Lenspen won't hurt your filters, especially if your filters have a coating as many upper end filters do now days.

[Entropy]

Depends if you're rather clean the front lens element or a filter or are near any projectiles (e.g., rocks). I've heard of lenses being hit by pebbles while covering dirt bike racing...

Hmm, actually the time I had my aforementioned DA 50-200 "no filter freakout" was at an airshow - god only knows what all those jet engines (and at least one helo) were kicking up.

I'm excessively paranoid about flying objects and my lens - this could partly because my eyesight was saved by shatterproof polycarbonate glasses at one point. (Hockey puck to the head as a spectator at a hockey game - yes a UV filter wouldn't save a lens in THAT situation, but it would against smaller flying objects.)

Someone commented something about a glass filter being like taping a pillow to the front of your car - there are plenty of cases of things that would severely scratch a filter but not shatter it. Heck, there's even a range of cases where the filter would crack but it would prevent the lens behind from getting scratched/cracked.

[KjetilH]

The point being made in my comment was more that the UV filter isn't a steel shield in front of your lens. A (big) pillow on a car could soften the impact, but is no guarantee for a safe crash. More often not, though the metaphor isn't meant directly.

[Zeroset]

Thank you all for your responses. I think I will get a filter for the new 50mm, maybe a nicer one that the current heliopan ones I have though (if these aren't up to par). I'll see what the local shop says. But I might not use the filter 24/7 with the 50mm like I have with my other two lenses. The responses in this thread helped.

[WendyB]

It's a personal preference. I certainly think no less of you for being protective. I generally prefer to use my things as they were designed. No phone cases, no screen protectors, no plastic on the sofa, and no UV filters. Some people feel otherwise, and that's fine.

It is much cheaper to replace a lens filter than a front element. If a front end element replacement is available on that note an entire lens.

I find the Hoya UVB-UVC to be one of the best less intrusive filters to give clearer and sharper images with less haze.

It is true while shooting indoors with the new window glass coatings. I prefer to remove the filter. After the lens is done working the filter is immediately returned to the lens.

While storing a lens (of which I store several hundred K-mounts) I still find some minuscule particulate matter (dust) on the lens filter even though a lens cap is also on the lens.

My opinion is its better to have this particulate matter on a 3 to 7 dollar lens filter to eliminate any possibility of damage to the SMC coating.

This is just plain common sense. If you feel more comfortable that you will capture a better image with out the filter. Then screw it off. When your done shooting screw it back on. A quick shot of clean compressed air also helps before doing so.


Wendy.


Do not dare suggest to take the plastic covering off my sofa. Its just way to comical to hear my hubby complain about it while watching a sporting event on TV. The squeaking of his butt on the material on a humid day is just way to funny.

[RiceHigh]

It's just a FAQ for many beginners.

I think if the lens is cheap enough, just don't use it, e.g., the kit lens.

If you feel unsafe for your other lens(es) to use it bare, do get only UV filter with multi-coatings. The cheap one I can recommend to you with good coatings is the Hoya HMC (ordinary ones). They are not expensive.

Remember do NOT use any non-multi-coated filters, these will have serious impact on image quality and reflections will be seen whenever there is a brighter light source in the frame.

Of course, there are better things around, say, the B+W MRC water resistant multi-coated, which has the best (more clear) glass and is easy to clean. The coatings are more sturdy too. But the difference on image quality is minimal.

I'm actually not impressed with Heliopan's coatings, but its glass is of good transparency, though.

To check the light loss and colourless-ness of a filter, put it on a snow white paper under bright white light and you will know.

[Big Dave]

Richard,
Nikkor lenses can be fitted to the Pentax as long as the light baffle doesn't extend more then 8.5mm past the rear edge of the appeture ring. This would be rear edge of the AI tabs on AI or AIS type lenses. You insert the lens into the bayonet at about bottom center of the bayonet. Then rotate the lens clockwise a few degrees. Don't over tighten. Handle the assembly with great care, since the lens isn't latched. This will also give perfect infinity focus. I have used my 35/2,55/3.5,105/2.5 and 200/4 lenses this way. My 20/3.5 has a baffle which goes to deep,so I haven't used it.

[QUOTE=Old Timer Exception is my old Nikon 28mm AIS lens. It's the only lens I've ever used that produces no "ghosting" whatsoever. Wish I could use it on my K10D.

Richard[/QUOTE]

[davemdsn]

I used to work in a camera shop and have seen people bring in lenses with a broken filter on the front of them where the filter ring was so damaged that they couldn't get the ring off. They can be a good insurance policy.

However, most filters are not multi-coated, which means that all the benefits of your multi-coated lens just went out the window. Not all filters are made from the same quality of glass, which can lead to distortion issues. If you are going to use them you should get expensive ones, like B+H, which defeats the point of cutting the cost of lens replacement. There are actually more reasons to not use them as there are to use them.

Personally, I don't keep filters on my lenses any more. I prefer to let the lens do the job it was intended to do without hampering it. Also, a lens hood will do more to protect the front of your lens than a filter will.

Also, having worked in a camera store, I can tell you why they push filters so much. The markup on cameras and lenses is tiny, usually no more than 10%. Markup on filters can be as much as 100%. Part of my paycheck was commissions and I could make more money selling a couple filters than I could selling a lens. If I sold a filter with every lens I doubled my commission for the sale.

[PDL]

I for one, have always used either a 1A, Haze or UV filter on all of the lenses on my SLR's; both film and digital. During my 35mm SLR era I was living at 7,280 feet in elevation where the amount of UV light was "normally" very high. Since I now live at about 200 feet - I still use a UV filter on all of my lenses. Even with digital it makes a difference because "haze" is caused by UV light that the sensor is sensitive too but the human eye is not --- just like film.

I also used filters for lens protection. Siblings, nephews and "other" people had been known to come up and literally 'touch' the lens. Most of them (back in the 70's) had not seen a camera with interchangeable lenses before and did not know that touching the lens was not a good thing. I also spent - over the years - about a month in Yellowstone National Park, where if you do not keep the steam, dropplets or spray off of your lenses, the coatings will be literally disolved. Even leaving a fingerprint on a lens for an extended period of time will cause the coatings to become degraded.

When out in the field, again back in the 35mm film days, the wind was always blowing dirt, rain or snow around. I always carried two brushes with me, one had short stiff bristles for getting the cr*p out of all the cracks and crevices and a soft one to clean the lens, mirrorand inside of the camera. Now I just carry a lenspen - just to clean the exterior of the filter.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL