Do you use a UV filter on your DSLR?
Posted by: fatcat on 30 March 2014
A lot of top quality photos are posted in the "Nice Photos" thread, by a lot of top quality photographers, using top quality equipment. I'd be interested to know what, if any filters are being used.
I'll be buying a new lens shortly for my Canon 40D, my EFS 17-85 has given up the ghost,. I use a UV filter with the old lens but the new lens has a different filter thread size.
The options I'm considering are UV filter, clear filter or no filter, although no filters would leave the lens unprotected.
By the way, has your 17-85 stopped playing the game at certain zoom settings only?
fatcat, yes I do depending on what I am doing, lenses and the extent of bright sunshine. The UV filter effectively slightly increases the depth of colours and clarity and can help make a really crisp vibrant image in bright sunshine by reducing UV lens fogging. Also flowers and plants tend to look more natural as well as the blueness in the sky.
Other filters I use include a circular polariser, and for when shooting black & white film a red filter.
As far as lens protection - I always attach the lens hood. It has saved my glass a few times..
Simon
By the way, has your 17-85 stopped playing the game at certain zoom settings only?
The 17-85 won't focus, it constantly hunts back and forth, however it does focus at wide angle. It had comms problem about 2 years ago, but this was fixed with a new cable.
Depends. Mostly not. I also have a couple of lenses that don't take front filters. I use lens hoods all the time, though.
By the way, has your 17-85 stopped playing the game at certain zoom settings only?
The 17-85 won't focus, it constantly hunts back and forth, however it does focus at wide angle. It had comms problem about 2 years ago, but this was fixed with a new cable.
Ok. I had the cable fail too, fixed easily by an independent.
Simon.
When I get the new lens I'll shoot in bright sunlight and test if a UV filter has that effect with that lens, A 72mm to 67mm adapters are only a few quid.
With regards to using polarising filters, I find the improvement when used on the 40D is nowhere near as great as when used with a 35mm film camera.
Fatcat, indeed give it a go. I am a Nikon man and have a D3 and D800.
I use a UV filter on my 17-35mm f2.8 and my 50mm f1.4 lenses as these tend to be my landscape lenses.
I use a circular polariser on my 17-35mm and works well with digi. Yes when I was using Ektachrome I could get an extreme effect if I wanted. Some of my work is on my website referenced on my profile.
Simon
I use a UV filter on my 17-35mm f2.8 and my 50mm f1.4 lenses as these tend to be my landscape lenses.
I use a circular polariser on my 17-35mm and works well with digi. Yes when I was using Ektachrome I could get an extreme effect if I wanted. Some of my work is on my website referenced on my profile.
Simon
I thought it was just me. The polarising effect is nowhere near as dramatic with DLSRs, is it?
No need to state which is which. Shot on Velvia. These shots were taken just a few minutes apart....
Ooooh, iffy subject.
'UV' filter on a digital camera, shouldn't strictly be needed. The sensor and electronics inside a modern camera are designed to sort out UV...Older, film based cameras couldn't do that without help one way or another. And you then wonder about the wisdom of sticking some 'cheaper' bit of glass on the front your precision engineered and bloody expensive lens...
Yet, some find them a great boon
However, they are incredibly useful protection against whacking the front of that expensive lens on something harder than the glass...
So, I don't have one on to improve the picture. I will have one on sometimes to protect the lens. Some, e.g. HOYA, will just describe themselves as lens protectors.
The simplest way to see if effective for you, for UV or protection, is to buy one, try one and if you find it useful then it's worth having. If not, ebay it!
JamieWednesbury, indeed as you say give it a go... although modern digi sensors can usually handle UV - I find the brightness / contrast and lack of milkiness is helped in certain conditions with a filter - which I believe is down to the lens mostly. I find the greater the resolution and dynamic range of the sensor/lens combination the more benefit you gain with UV filtering. I am attending a pro workshop in a couple of weeks - and it will be interesting discuss with other photographers UV on the on the D800, but I certainly don't shoot my pro work with out a high quality UV filter when doing sunny landscapes/beachscapes - apart from a fisheye I use which can't take a lens filter.
I always have a filter of some sort on my lenses – just for protection & ease of cleaning dust & dirt that is important in my field work. My lenses are all Canon & have either 72mm or 77mm filter thread sizes & I have the same filters for each. I use the low impact UV filters that do not have so much effect on image other than some minor sky colour correction/enhancement - but used primarily for protection. I also use polarizing filters quite a lot. I get some useful effects with water reflections & various sky & cloud effects. I also find polarised most useful in flat semi light dawn/evenings when they are great for enhancing dull colour & contrast.
and of course - for good old Blightly - the graduated filter - fantastic for bringing texture and emotion into a bright white cloudy sky. Even though modern pro sensors have a great dynamic range - I find here they still benefit from a helping hand.
I use clear glass filters which do not cause any shifts in colors or contrast and a hood on my wide-angle lenses.
and of course - for good old Blightly - the graduated filter - fantastic for bringing texture and emotion into a bright white cloudy sky. Even though modern pro sensors have a great dynamic range - I find here they still benefit from a helping hand.
Absolutely. You can't bring colour back into a blown-out sky without cheating a fair bit in post.
My lenses all have a skylight 1A filter fitted. Similar to other posters, the main purpose of the filter is to act as protection to the expensive front element and its multi-coating which, with regular cleaning will otherwise be damaged. Filters are relatively cheap and easy to replace if scratched. Must confess that the 1A filters are a carry over from film days and I haven't thought about the difference between film and digital. Not a major problem as I have only recently bought a dslr!
Peter
I used to use one on my old film Nikon FM2. On my M9 I never do. I've never felt the need to use one - why, the saying goes, put a filter in front of the world's best glass? - and any problems I've thus far always been able to correct in Lightroom.
I always use a Nikon NC filter on my Nikon lenses for protection and it removes the need to constantly clean the delicate lens surface.
The only time I find this filter changes the performance of a lens, is if I'm shooting into the sun and I want to use the ghosting as part of the image. I'll then remove the filter. This is very rare though.
I have a filter on one lens because it is not weather sealed.
My lenses are not fragile and do not need any protection and rarely need cleaning.
My camera self-filters UV.
No, I don't understand why anyone would buy expensive high quality lenses and then leave a cheap filter permanently in front of it. You wouldn't put an after market grill over your speakers to protect them would you?
absolutely agree. I always use quality multi layer coated Nikon filters when I want to use filters which are designed for their pro lenses.
Only exception is when I use rectangular Cokin filters such as grads which I hand hold in front of the lens, but these filters aren't cheap either.
A quality lens has minimum geometric distortion, ghosting, colour bleed/refraction, vignetting and max resolution and contrast across its working range. A quality filter IME doesn't inhibit these qualities.
I'm not totally convinced the lens makers have the best filters, they don't always make the best lens so why believe they make the best filters.
I use Hoya & B+W, B+W is the top dog for sure.
dayjay, not all filters are "cheap" as you describe & they do enhance or give highly desirable effects, polarised with landscapes especially.
I put a filter on because I work in environments where I would rather damage a high quality filter than the lens optics. If I'm working inside or in benign conditions & depending on what's on the menu, the filter comes off.
The simplest way to see if effective for you, for UV or protection, is to buy one, try one and if you find it useful then it's worth having. If not, ebay it!
+1. Or just buy on Amazon and send back if not suitable.
Mike, my response was related to the use of a UV filter to protect the lens - the answer would be no, I wouldn't spend several hundred pounds and more on a lens and then routinely leave an £80 filter on the front of it. For protection all my kit is insured, more often than not I use a hood and I make damned sure I don't drop the bloody things because they don't tend to bounce too well. I do use NDs, Grads and Polarisers on a regular basis and I buy the best I can afford but I only use them when required and I don't have any filter that is always attached to any lens. If I used my lens for business in a hostile environment perhaps I would use a good clear filter for protection but I shoot for fun - the money I make from photography is a happy bonus which lets me play around with different lenses etc and I don't need to take those risks
I always used a UV filter on all of my Nikkor lenses, and now on my Fuji X lens. It does not seem to make any difference with my XE1 as far as colour rendition is concerned, but it does offer excellent protection against fingerprints, scratches, etc.: you can easily replace the filter, but not the front element of the lens.
A quality filter is obviously better, but not necessarily from the same camera or lens manufacturer. I used to have Nikon filters, I now use a B+W with the Fuji (the Fuji filter was about 80 euros).
Told you...