UV filter or No UV filter?

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

roscopecotrain

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 20:36
Hi all,

I am a new dslr user and have purchased a KX.

Now i have been told by some people to make sure i have a UV filter to protect lense and cut out UV rays but i have also been told not to use one as it effects the photo and slight scratches on lense will not matter.

Please vote with or without UV filter and could you please explain your vote to a new user.

Thankyou, Ross
Pentax KX Black 18-55mm DAL

Panasonic FZ28 Superzoom

My Flickr

Anvh

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 20:50
UV is already cut out by the lens coating and the filter that's in front of the sensor.
As for protection, that's only needed with very old lenses just look at this link

The front element is very hard to scratch and even if you did you will hardly notice it on your photo, just put a corner of a post it paper on your lens and be surprised by not seeing it

The only reason I can think off to use a filter as protection is against corrosive elements that can hurt the coating, like the salt water and the sand if you're on the beach a lot of the time as an example.

here is a view on the matter by someone else. link
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Helpful

dougf8

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 20:51
I think it goes,

Expensive lens why stick more glass in front of it and reduce the IQ.

UV is only a problem for film, sensors have a UV filter built in.

My UV filter broke the fall of my camera and saved the expensive lens and the camera bounced back up high enough I caught it.

I put UV lenses on all my old lenses in the film days and I'm not stopping now.

---------

I do on one lens and not on others.
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 13/10/2010 - 20:52

user_removed

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:01
roscopecotrain wrote:
Hi all,

I am a new dslr user and have purchased a KX.

Now i have been told by some people to make sure i have a UV filter to protect lense and cut out UV rays but i have also been told not to use one as it effects the photo and slight scratches on lense will not matter.

Please vote with or without UV filter and could you please explain your vote to a new user.

Thankyou, Ross

Rest assured that a top quality filter, whatever type you choose, will NOT affect your IQ (that's Image Quality Btw), but they are not cheap.

There's a golden rule worth following that you simply do not fit the equivalent of a beer glass on your expensive lenses. Garbage will be the result.

You suggest getting a UV. OK, well in my experience they do have merit in that they don't block much light to your lens, and also (mostly) serving as a front-of-lens cover against the elements, dust, water drops etc.

But their original and intended purpose of course is UV, filtering that out of your pics. Which in real world practice is mostly what we call "haze" in the atmosphere, most often seen over distant water masses, hills, whatever. You know, we've all seen it before and it often gets confused with smog.

I'm not a personal fan of UVs myself, but I do have and use polarizing filters, or CPLs, and love the effects they can bring.

Anyway, I'll shut up now and let others here add to the Stone Soup and hopefully you'll then be able gain all the info you need to make a wise decision in the end.

.R.

Helpful

johnriley

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:01
Shops selling cameras and lenses sometimes like to sell "add-ons" to increase the sale with the more profitable accessories. A filter is a handy "add-on" and with digital of dubious value.

More relevant is a lens hood, which I think is an essential accessory as it may actually improve the contrast of your shots by shielding the lens from unwanted light.
Best regards, John

roscopecotrain

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:07
Thanks for all the info people.

I do in fact have a polarizer (hoya) now which i managed to pick up second hand.

I think i will stay away from the UV filter and spend the money on a lens hood instead.
Pentax KX Black 18-55mm DAL

Panasonic FZ28 Superzoom

My Flickr

johnriley

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:09
There are just a handful of filters that are strill sometimes used. The polariser, graduated filters and Infra Red filters being the most common. These are the few circumstances where it's necessary to apply the filtering at the exposure stage rather than later in Photoshop.
Best regards, John

Helpful

matwhittington

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:22
I voted no because as a rule I don't use the UV filters, for reasons already stated here. However, I do own a couple of them to use additional protection if/when I end up in an environment which might be damaging... for example if I am likely to get splashed with sea water or something like that. UV filters often seem to be sold as 'protect' filters for this reason I guess. That said, the use they actually get is minimal, especially as I tend to use DA* lenses when I can, which are weather sealed and pretty robust already.

Regards

Anvh

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:26
Hypocorism wrote:
Rest assured that a top quality filter, whatever type you choose, will NOT affect your IQ (that's Image Quality Btw), but they are not cheap.

Flaring is always a problem, some do have coatings for that but they only reduce the flare or chance to that.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 13/10/2010 - 21:29

user_removed

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:27
roscopecotrain wrote:

I think i will stay away from the UV filter and spend the money on a lens hood instead.

I don't think you'll end up regretting that decision, however re: the lens hood, can I ask why you didn't get one with your new K-x purchase?

All default lenses I've seen sold with K-x come with a hood (my Sigma did, and Pentax 18-55 do), or did you buy body only?

.R.

Anvh

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:30
Hypocorism wrote:
roscopecotrain wrote:

I think i will stay away from the UV filter and spend the money on a lens hood instead.

I don't think you'll end up regretting that decision, however re: the lens hood, can I ask why you didn't get one with your new K-x purchase?

All default lenses I've seen sold with K-x come with a hood (my Sigma did, and Pentax 18-55 do), or did you buy body only?

.R.

The Pentax DA-L lenses that are bundled with the K-M, K-X and the K-r don't have the hood included.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

johnriley

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:31
K-x cameras are supplied in kits with DA-L lenses which have no hoods supplied, have no Quick Shift and have a plastic lens mount.
Best regards, John

Anvh

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:33
matwhittington wrote:
I voted no because as a rule I don't use the UV filters, for reasons already stated here. However, I do own a couple of them to use additional protection if/when I end up in an environment which might be damaging... for example if I am likely to get splashed with sea water or something like that. UV filters often seem to be sold as 'protect' filters for this reason I guess. That said, the use they actually get is minimal, especially as I tend to use DA* lenses when I can, which are weather sealed and pretty robust already.

The DA* lenses and some of the newer DA lenses have the SP (Super Protection) coating it's fluoride based and should protect against water-based and/or oily substances.
I wonder if that includes sea-water?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

user_removed

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:46
Anvh wrote:

Flaring is always a problem, some do have coatings for that but they only reduce the flare.

That is true, as is can be with most lenses, even big $$$ ones.

However, like I alluded in my response, any filter worth buying on the market these days is not cheap but will have several coatings similar in quality and flare control abilities to those of good lenses, and if managed sensibly in your photography, can be minimised in the results.

And of course common sense says that if a photo scene would be screwed badly by a given filter then take the thing off for that occasion!

It ain't rocket science - nor can new photographers like the O.P be accused of incapacity to learn by their early mistakes. Sheezh, even I did.

You raised a very good point to the discussion anyway. One worthwhile to cover IMhO.

.R.

user_removed

Link Posted 13/10/2010 - 21:57
johnriley wrote:
K-x cameras are supplied in kits with DA-L lenses which have no hoods supplied, have no Quick Shift and have a plastic lens mount.

Holy crap Batman. Do you poms really get ripped off that bad?

Or is the reduced value-added marketing tactics pioneered by Canon being adopted by Pentax lately?
Cruel isn't it.

Ps; I suggest you take a 10,000km swim across the pond and get your K-x's from my local store. Surely not the case when friends and I bought in.

.R.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.