| Author |
Message |
martyhaas
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 148
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 3:39 pm
|  |
I'm about to order a new lens, so I thought I'd order a B+W UV filter to go with it. Yowsa. They must have about 30 different 62mm UV filters ranging in price from about $25–$125. For example:
B + W 62mm UV (Ultra Violet) Haze Multi Coated (2C) Glass Filter #010 $36.50
B + W 62mm XS-PRO Clear MRC (007m) Glass Filter $66
B + W 62mm Skylight 1A Multi Coated (2C) Glass Filter (KR1.5) $44
B + W 62mm Digital Pro UV/IR Blocking #486 Glass Filter for Blocking Ultra Violet and Infrared Radiation $92
Some say they help correct the excess blue in the sky. Some say they absorb the UV rays that make photos look hazy and indistinct. One says it's just pure, clear glass with no effect. One says that it only absorbs 1/10th of an f-stop while another says it improves transmission from about 92% (uncoated glass) to about 98%.
LOL, I thought that if I just chose a good brand like B+W that I'd find it an easy choice.
|
|
martyhaas
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 148
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24082
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:38 pm
| |
I don't use UV filters. To me they are a waste of money. Most lenses have a UV protection on them already. I also don't use them for lens protection. I use my lens cap and lens hood for that.
If you are going to get one then get the best you can. No use putting on an inferior piece of garbage on your lens that will reduce the quality.
|
|
mauijon
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4279
Location: Maui, Hawaii
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 8:09 pm
| |
I would say use one only if you are in severe blowing dust or sea spray. Otherwise don't use it.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39221
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:01 pm
| |
Modern Lenses come with UV protection. UV filters are a scam. They make more on them than cameras from Newbies that they tell them you need to protect your lens. Thats what a lens cap is for. If ya want protection and something that does some good and not degrade the Image,get a 81a from B+W, it's a warming filter. I have one on all my Glass.Or, Get a Optical clear glass filter.
When I see folks at our workshops with UV filters I make them take them Off.it's not the 50's or 60's anymore. Salesmen are salesmen, There not photographers.
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 3:41 pm
| |
I find it amusing how against lens protection people can be. In some circumstances it's actually beneficial. Sure the lens cap can be used but if I tried that with my motorsport work I'd miss most of my best shots by having to stop shooting and put the cap on.
To me, the filter is a disposable thing that can be sacrificed if necessary.
If I'm photographing in a more camera friendly environment then I'll take it off but otherwise it stays on.
Sure, UV filters don't have much place these days but everyone is entitled to have their own views on such things.
|
|
felix_casio
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774
Location: www.felixtm.com
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:38 pm
| |
never used a filter. I cant help but laugh sometimes when I see touristas walking around with filter upon filter upon filter.
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24082
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 6:47 pm
| |
| geoffwnz wrote: | I find it amusing how against lens protection people can be. In some circumstances it's actually beneficial. Sure the lens cap can be used but if I tried that with my motorsport work I'd miss most of my best shots by having to stop shooting and put the cap on.
To me, the filter is a disposable thing that can be sacrificed if necessary.
If I'm photographing in a more camera friendly environment then I'll take it off but otherwise it stays on.
Sure, UV filters don't have much place these days but everyone is entitled to have their own views on such things. |
We are not saying that filters are a bad thing. We are saying that the UV filters people want to put on their lenses are pretty much useless and not needed.
Many forget that if you put something inferior onto a lens you will degrade the quality of the image. Putting a $20 piece of garbage filter on a lens makes no sense whatsoever.
If you want to put something on for protection then make sure that the glass in the filter is as good as your lens. That can even cause problems because if your lens is not that good of a quality you are just compounding the problem.
I have been shooting for over 40 years and have shot all kinds of things from nice and safe to hazardous for my equipment and have only had one problem. That was due me dropping my lens in some sand and sand getting into the back end of the lens.
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 6:55 pm
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | I find it amusing how against lens protection people can be. In some circumstances it's actually beneficial. Sure the lens cap can be used but if I tried that with my motorsport work I'd miss most of my best shots by having to stop shooting and put the cap on.
To me, the filter is a disposable thing that can be sacrificed if necessary.
If I'm photographing in a more camera friendly environment then I'll take it off but otherwise it stays on.
Sure, UV filters don't have much place these days but everyone is entitled to have their own views on such things. |
We are not saying that filters are a bad thing. We are saying that the UV filters people want to put on their lenses are pretty much useless and not needed.
Many forget that if you put something inferior onto a lens you will degrade the quality of the image. Putting a $20 piece of garbage filter on a lens makes no sense whatsoever.
If you want to put something on for protection then make sure that the glass in the filter is as good as your lens. That can even cause problems because if your lens is not that good of a quality you are just compounding the problem.
I have been shooting for over 40 years and have shot all kinds of things from nice and safe to hazardous for my equipment and have only had one problem. That was due me dropping my lens in some sand and sand getting into the back end of the lens. |
I'm not disagreeing with the potential quality issues, nor the UV thing.
I tend to be in places where cars are doing their best to bury me in dirt and gravel. Some of them are more successful than others. And no matter how much you plan to be out of the worst of it, there's always one who manages to cover me. :-)
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39221
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 7:40 pm
| |
Thats fine. lots of guys specialize in seascapes also Simple answer. Just use a clear optical Glass filter instead if you think you need protection. i believe in protection also but like I said, Use something that at least has a benefit 81A or B. UV filters have zero benefit and add to Flatness of an Image. Your Image, You decide.Just saying..If ya can't tell the difference well, I guess it's a moot point.I can.
|
|
martyhaas
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 148
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:52 pm
| |
I never heard anything about lenses coming with UV protection built into them. If that's the case, then it's simply a question of how much peace of mind will I get out of knowing that there's a disposable layer of quality glass protecting the non-disposable glass. One of the options B+W offers is the clear glass.
Putting a cheap piece of glass on the front was never an option for me. I get the problems there. But there is such a ridiculous variety of UV filters that I was perplexed.
Thanks everyone for chiming in.
|
|
felix_casio
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774
Location: www.felixtm.com
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:23 am
| |
| martyhaas wrote: | I never heard anything about lenses coming with UV protection built into them. If that's the case, then it's simply a question of how much peace of mind will I get out of knowing that there's a disposable layer of quality glass protecting the non-disposable glass. One of the options B+W offers is the clear glass.
Putting a cheap piece of glass on the front was never an option for me. I get the problems there. But there is such a ridiculous variety of UV filters that I was perplexed.
Thanks everyone for chiming in. |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:37 pm
| |
| felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how:
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
179.89 KB |
| Viewed: |
2868 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
148.94 KB |
| Viewed: |
2868 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
177.5 KB |
| Viewed: |
2868 Time(s) |
|
|
|
felix_casio
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774
Location: www.felixtm.com
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:57 pm
| |
| geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how: |
see I did not take that into account, for those type of shots I would get back with a 200 or 300mm. I was talking more about this...
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:27 pm
| |
| felix_casio wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | felix_casio wrote: |
I have these following lenses and all of them have hoods. I don't see how anything can really get in there to cause damage.
|
This is how: |
see I did not take that into account, for those type of shots I would get back with a 200 or 300mm. I was talking more about this...
|
Yeah, slightly less chance of rock throwing provided you have the subject's permission. :-p
But in the case of the three shots I showed above, there was nothing but empty space behind me, so longer lens wasn't going to be much use.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
