Using UV Filters


Gajan

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 09:08
Thinking of getting a 62mm UV filter for my new 18 -135 WR mainly to protect it from scratches etc.

Does it have any effect on image quality? Any particular makes you are happy with or to avoid? Are the expensive HD versions really worth the extra investment?

I would appreciate any input based on your experiences.

Best Regards,
Gajan
Best Regards,

Gajan

Flickr : link

Pentax K-1, Pentax HD D-FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR, Pentax FA 77mm 1.8 Limited, Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR
Pentax K-5, Pentax 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL IF DC WR, Pentax DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR
Pentax K100D Super, SMC Pentax 3.6-:5.4 18-55mm AL

ChrisA

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 09:45
Most people here recommend a hood rather than a filter.

It's a topic that comes up about three times a year, and the answers boil down to:

- Don't use one: why buy an expensive lens and then stick more glass in front of it, given that the coating is pretty tough anyway, and if something breaks the filter, it's likely to badly scratch the front element.

- Use one if you want, it makes very little difference unless the filter is a cheap crappy one, and fingerprints are more likely than scratches.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

johnriley

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 10:03
That's a sort of summing up from ChrisA, but to be fair there are those who have experienced filters fragmenting and damaging front elements. I'm not sure that anyone who uses a hood has damaged an unprotected front element.

Save your money, unless you are so clumsy that you stick your fingers all over the front element. In which case it would happen even more to a filter.

Filters that are useful are ND grads, polarisers and UV/Skylight if there's going to be a lot of salt spray hitting the lens. Apart from that, save your money and always use the hood.
Best regards, John

Gamka

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 10:19
I am of the use a filter side of the argument. However I tend to use a Protector on most lenses although a couple do have a UV.

If you do decide to go with a filter then look at:

The Hoya Pro1 range (which mine are) http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/pro1digitalfilterseries/

or the Hoya HD which are a newer "improved" version http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/hdfilters/

They are not cheap and to me the argument about putting a filter in front of an expensive lens needs further consideration. Simplistically: A DA*16-50 is around £900 and contains 15 lens elements leaving assembly and teh barrel aside that is about £60/element. An HD UV filter will be £90 to £100 ... It does suggest that a lot of care is taken in designing and manufacturing the filters.

And a word of warning. Think three times about buying a bargain one off an auction site ... there are a lot of fakes out there.

ChrisA

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 11:50
johnriley wrote:
That's a sort of summing up from ChrisA, but to be fair there are those who have experienced filters fragmenting and damaging front elements. I'm not sure that anyone who uses a hood has damaged an unprotected front element.

Sort of?

I did say, "and if something breaks the filter, it's likely to badly scratch the front element"

Not sure what you're getting at John. I thought that was a pretty fair summary of the two main views.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 16/12/2013 - 11:53

gartmore

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:09
I'm with ChrisA and John on this and have personally had a lens damaged by a breaking filter. I'll only add that the front element is way tougher than any filter.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Gamka

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:25
johnriley wrote:
That's a sort of summing up from ChrisA, but to be fair there are those who have experienced filters fragmenting and damaging front elements. I'm not sure that anyone who uses a hood has damaged an unprotected front element.

Just thinking back to around 1978 ... two of us were doing a series covering casting from making the wooden patterns, sand moulds, casting, fettling and basic machining. In that environment there can be some real nasties flying around and changing films meant leaving the building to stop dust entering the body and lenses were never changed.

At the end of it, my filter was ruined and the other photographer had a damaged front element. In both cases particles had welded themselves on.

Horst

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:32
Every piece of glass, no matter how plain and what coating it has, introduces some flair. Compared to nothing any glass is a cloudy thing you put in front of your lens.

The only exception is suppose would be a polarizing filter,
or special purpose filters and in the old days with a B& W film day a yellow filter.And with old lenses an UV filter for colour. (Old glasses where not UV absorbent)

However a lens shade ( Lens hood, Compendium),is a must for any lens, except a deep seated one, like for example the Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 macro.
A lens hood can only do good and never be bad. It even protects your front element from rain. I have quite a few lenses , Old and new types. but every one has and is stored with a lens hood.

Regards, Horst
Last Edited by Horst on 16/12/2013 - 12:33

johnriley

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:43
Gamka wrote:
johnriley wrote:
That's a sort of summing up from ChrisA, but to be fair there are those who have experienced filters fragmenting and damaging front elements. I'm not sure that anyone who uses a hood has damaged an unprotected front element.

Just thinking back to around 1978 ... two of us were doing a series covering casting from making the wooden patterns, sand moulds, casting, fettling and basic machining. In that environment there can be some real nasties flying around and changing films meant leaving the building to stop dust entering the body and lenses were never changed.

At the end of it, my filter was ruined and the other photographer had a damaged front element. In both cases particles had welded themselves on.

Maybe so, but that simply comes under circumstances where a filter might have to sacrificed. Common sense to use one. The salt water spray example offered is similar. In adverse conditions, we protect camera and lens, but not all the time.
Best regards, John

petrochemist

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:51
Whilst I'm with John/Chris/Ken/Horst on this I think it's worth adding that there are some rare occations where a filter might be a good idea.

If your likely to be getting salt/dirty water spray around (not so rare with WR cameras) add a filter (even a relatively cheap one) till clear of the spray.

I've used them to hold a Bokeh mask in place between the lens & the filter).

They may come in handy for full spectrum converted cameras.

The main arguments for UV filters comes from film days where the sensing medium was sensitive to UV. These days the sensor it coated to prevent UV sensitivity.
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.

.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio

johnriley

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 12:55
Perhaps sales people being constantly pushed to sell "add ons" when selling a camera could also be a factor? The profit for retailers could lie in the filter, case, maintenance kit and insurance that they want to add on to every sale.
Best regards, John

Gajan

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 17:30
Thank you all for your input. I think I will leave the UV filter out and may consider keeping one in the bag in the future for use when the situation demands.

I feel just the hood or the cap will do for now.

Best regards,
Gajan
Best Regards,

Gajan

Flickr : link

Pentax K-1, Pentax HD D-FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR, Pentax FA 77mm 1.8 Limited, Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR
Pentax K-5, Pentax 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL IF DC WR, Pentax DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR
Pentax K100D Super, SMC Pentax 3.6-:5.4 18-55mm AL

RalphHardwick

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 18:49
I always leave a UV filter on my lens unless I'm specifically aiming to get the absolute best photograph I can. I always get a filter with every lens I buy as you can often get a deal on the filter price.

I would love to claim that a filter would have a detrimental effect on my images but 80%+ of the images I take fall into the family snap or general memory category where you would not notice any difference. When I deliberately put extra effort into capturing a specific image then I remove the filter just in case. Also where I feel there may be potential for 'extra' flare I take it off.

For 10 years I travelled as an engineer in the Merchant Navy. My Pentax K1000 and Olympus OM2 travelled on planes, boats, and trains, in backpacks up mountains, on deck in rough seas and in a variety of uncomfortable and rough locations. The camera bags back then were nowhere near as padded and protective as they are now and in all that time I never had a problem with broken filter. However I did have, sea spray, diesel and any number of other unmentionable fluids and fingerprints which would have ruined the lens.

In the last 5 years I have travelled extensively with my Oly E520 and Pentax K5iis and, again, have never suffered a broken filter but have been very grateful that I had them fitted.

For me the risk of goo on the lens and the slight chance that the filter will cause more damage than the impact that broke it are much higher than the risk of a minimal reduction in image quality. But that's just me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptureLight Ltd
flickr
"I carry a camera to capture memories and the occasional photograph worthy of sharing"
Last Edited by RalphHardwick on 16/12/2013 - 18:51

bwlchmawr

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 18:53
RalphHardwick wrote:
I always leave a UV filter on my lens...
For me the risk of goo on the lens and the slight chance that the filter will cause more damage than the impact that broke it are much higher than the risk of a minimal reduction in image quality. But that's just me

I quite agree.
Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference.  All of them can record what you are seeing.  But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

Russ

Link Posted 16/12/2013 - 19:06
Only have one screw in filter and that is a Hoya CPL. All three of my lenses are 62mm, so just one filter needed.
I use to stick a cheap UV on all of them up till last year but then read i was probably degrading the IQ, so ditched them all. Just make sure a lens hood is in place unless using the Cokin filters.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.