Gear Talk > Lenses
Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!
@!ex:
I shot with B+W filters at first as a protective measure, but would end up with aberrations, flares, and mirroring which ruins pictures. I have never had a damaged lens front, and to me the expensive coatings on the lenses are one of the most important features that you compromise with a filter. Plus they trap dust in between the lens and the filter, and are annoying, that on top of the problems I mentioned earlier have made them sacrilegious for me (especially on L glass).
just my 2 cents.
@!ex:
Also, I see so many photographers that are so worried about protecting all their gear, and so protective of everything that I wonder how much they actually care about what is important, the images themselves....
Random Orbits:
Everything that you put in the path between the subject and the sensor will "degrade" the image, but good filters affect the images less so that ther effects aren't visible to our eyes' sensitivity. The same can also be true of lenses that have a lot of elements (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but no one complains that of the poor IQ even though it has so many air/glass interfaces). There are videos on YouTube where people stack dozens of filters and obviously the images degrade. You might need more B+Ws to get the same degradation than some other brands, but if you have enough of them, it won't matter -- the image will also degrade. Filters can affect flare, so if flare is an issue, I just take it off and see if it improves, take the pics and put it back on.
A few lenses need filters to complete the weather sealing (i.e. 50L), but I find the filters a lot easier to clean. In dirty environments I'm much more willing to wipe off dirt, fluids, etc with whatever is on hand off of filters where I don't have to worry about scratching lens elements. The front elements have a lot of coatings and I'd rather not worry that my quick and dirty methods of cleaning the lenses in the field would degrade/scratch the coating layers. Small scratches of the coating layers won't affect IQ either, but it would affect resale value. I get a lot of my equipment used, and I'd rather buy a lens that looks perfect than one that shows wear and tear. I'd rather buy stuff that has been babied rather not used extensively in harsh environments... wouldn't you?
sandymandy:
i will never ever put a filter on one of my lenses. except ND for long term exposure. but uv filter or such? BAH!
Hillsilly:
I've no idea if a UV lens significantly distorts or degrades the image, but for what its worth, I rarely use one. The only time I put one is when I'm shooting in dusty or dirty conditions (eg rally car races). They are easier to clean and give me a little peace of mind when there are rocks flying around.
The only time I've ever dropped a lens (a 17-40), it had a UV filter on. It fell on its side. But the UV filter smashed into tiny pieces. The lens itself was fine. Cleaning all of the tiny shards of glass from the front element and filter thread was a time consuming process, as I didn't want to scratch it. I thought I was quite lucky as the broken glass could have easily damaged the lens.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version