UV filters (any difference?)

[RLPhoto]

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer? I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A

6:30 in.

also stated in this is the earlier made point that modern chips don't pick up uv rays anyway.

proof: conclusive 8)

Lol Kai is entertaining. I'm subscribed to DRTV.

I've never liked hoyas. B&Ws are so good, you would not be able to tell the difference. Lets compare some images made and point out which had a filter.

 

[Canon_Wisconsin]

I go middle-of-the-line for filters. I've been buying and liking the Sigma filters (from Amazon). They get good reviews. Avoid the Tiffen and other cheap brands, read reviews, and give the middle of the line ones a whirl.

ETA: I have a Hoya on my Tamron. It came with a tiny little mark where it looks like the filter "glaze" (for lack of better term) is worn off, but it was so miniscule, I didn't do anything about it. The 135L and the 85 1.8 both have Sigma filters and they were so super clear out of the packaging, it almost looked as if there was no glass there at all.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Not sure about the writer on this thread who asserts that you can replace a front lens element for the cost of a good filter. My mail is delivered to a different planet. Ditto for the gentleman who claims that a lens hood is all the protection a lens needs. (I agree it's the first and best line of defense for the knocks, bumps and other physical slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but my world is sure a lot dirtier than his.) Try as I will I can't keep grease smudges, grit, condensation spots, etc., off the front of my lenses. And who hasn't had a lens cap--especially a Canon lens cap--fall off inside the camera bag, a presumed safe haven for lenses?

And that to me is the value of a good filter. Glass has an affinity for dirt. You gave up smoking and surprise, surprise, the inside of your windshield still gets that ugly film on it just from being exposed to the atmosphere. While I'm always amazed at the number of people who tote expensive DSLR bodies with horribly smudged lenses, most folks who are serious about photography want to shoot through clean glass. If you do, some part of the optical system has to get cleaned. And as they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing. If you can live with the dirt all over the business end of your camera, it won't damage your lens (unless it's caustic or arrives at sandblasting speed). It's the process of removing it that is at least mildly invasive and abrasive. Aside from the grit that's currently on the lens, there's all that residual stuff from previous cleanings. (It didn't just evaporate from your microfiber cloth, you know; in fact that clingy cloth probably picked up some additional material from the inside of your camera bag.) No matter how careful you are, it all gets dragged across the surface of whatever glass you're cleaning, and it all nano-etches. No one is claiming that a UV filter sharpens a lens, but neither would anyone claim that years of cleaning the front element improves a lens's optical performance.

I've had a couple of my lenses for seven years, and in that time I've cleaned the filters more than a hundred times. I plan to keep most of my lenses for the rest of my life, and I can foresee a possible need to replace filters at some point. What I won't ever have to do is worry about degraded performance from the lens elements themselves. The filter in front protects the lens not only from particular kinds of dirt, but almost eliminates general atmospheric contamination. I know that the surfaces beneath the filter are in pristine condition, because except for using a puff brush to remove the occasional mote of dust that sneaks in during a filter change, those elements, after an initial personal inspection, have never been touched, much less cleaned.

And for all you gonzo types who think filters are a collaborative scam of camera salesmen, here's a question to answer honestly: who would you really rather buy a five-year-old lens from: someone (like me) who obsesses a bit about protecting the exposed elements of his lenses, or someone like you?

Finally, it's not as if mounting a filter is an inconvenience, and for me the cost of a top-of-the-line filter is trivial, not because I have an unlimited budget, but because I have a very tight one. When I do take the plunge for a lens, it's for the "expensive as L" variety, and it's a lifetime investment. And if I've spent $1700 for a lens, why wouldn't I spend another $80 to maintain and optimize it's performance?

 

[darkhound]

If you can afford to replace your lens or are earning enough from your work to not worry, forget the filter. Also factor in the degree of malcordination that exist within you

Do keep in mind that one of the lenses the OP mentions is the 17-40mm f/4L, and that is a lens that requires a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing for the lens.

There's a very nice article on Lenstip whose conclusion is that HOYA filters are the best, both overall and in terms of value for money (depends on the model you buy).

No problem with lens caps, but I never tried stacking them.

Right - but you have to look at the test data in the context of the utility of a UV filter on a dSLR. The Hoya filters scored better than the B+W because they more effectively block UV light (defined as 200-390nm). But modern dSLRs aren't sensitive to UV light, so that criterion is pretty much irrelevant in terms of current utility. The B+W filters actually score better (slightly) than the Hoya filters in terms of visible light transmission (which LensTip defines as 390-750nm, although the standard definition is 400-700nm). But the difference is only ~1%, which is practically irrelevant.

So, based on the LensTip test data, for a dSLR there's no optical difference between the B+W MRC and the high end Hoya filters. Personally, I find the MRC (and Nano) coatings very easy to clean, similar to the Hoya HD coating. The standard Hoya coatings are reportedly harder to clean. Also, the brass mount rings on the B+W filters are less prone to thermal expansion than the aluminum rings on most other filters, meaning it's less likely the B+W's will get stuck if stacked (but it can still happen, which is why having a set of $5 filter wrenches with you is a good idea!).

Based on this, Ill get clear b&w filters. Also, great tip about filter wrenches. Never heard of them before. I have another lens that has a filter on it that I dropped (while in a padded bag) and the force bent the threads so that the filter is permanently locked in. Hope this wrench works. I read that it did for someone else who dropped their lens. Thanks!

 

[darkhound]

The key is understanding the actual type of photography you do and, from that, knowing if adding a filter to your hood (which you should always use) will offer physical protection worth the degradation of image quality. Or, if you regularly shoot in environments in which a filter is actually prudent, you should be able to recognize situations where the filter is going to significantly degrade image quality and be able to make the decision to remove the filter for that shot.

+1

I do use UV filters when shooting around water/sand (and on my 17-40L), but always use hoods on all my lenses for the reasons TrumpetPower states.

Interesting article and discussion at LenRentals.com on this topic as well (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters). Filter quality does matter, particularly if you need to stack.

Good advice. Problem is that I will be using my new 6d for pretty much just travel and I need to keep my camera bag as small as possible. The 6d is much bigger than my Rebel as is. The hood really takes up volume. And the sheer length of it in use looks kinda ridiculous. I'll have to just stick withy the filter and be more careful this time. Thanks!

 

[J.R.]

Whether you decide to use a filter or not, if protection is your goal, you'd be a fool to not use a lens hood.

A hood actually improves image quality, while even the best filters degrade image quality (though, granted, imperceptibly so with the high quality ones). Except for those few lenses where a filter is required to complete environmental sealing, a filter only protects against the types of hazards that come in situations where you yourself should be wearing eye protection -- such as gravel kicked up at a rodeo. A hood, on the other hand, protects against all the common real-world types of hazards photographers face, including impact and fingerprints. More to the point, an impact that would damage a front element will damage the filter in a way that will often transmit the damage on to the lens, such as by jamming the filter threads or scratching the front element with the broken filter. The hood will actually protect the lens against those types of damage. And quality filters generally cost about as much as repairing a lens with a damaged front element.

For most photographers in most situations, the hood provides all the protection one needs. For many (not most) photographers in many (not most) situations, a filter will degrade image quality. For only a few photographers in only a few situations will a filter provide protection not offered by a lens hood.

The key is understanding the actual type of photography you do and, from that, knowing if adding a filter to your hood (which you should always use) will offer physical protection worth the degradation of image quality. Or, if you regularly shoot in environments in which a filter is actually prudent, you should be able to recognize situations where the filter is going to significantly degrade image quality and be able to make the decision to remove the filter for that shot.

(Of course, this all applies only to clear / UV / protection filters. Polarizers, neutral density filters, and other filters for effects are irrelevant to the discussion. And, of course, there are all sorts of other odd exceptions, such as lenses like the 50 compact macro which is its own hood, the fisheye lenses and their bulbous front elements, photojournalists who should be getting combat pay, and the like.)

Cheers,

b&

+1

I use both, a filter as well as the lens hood on my lenses because one must take into account the lens hood. The petal shaped lens hoods of the 17-40 and 24-105 offer protection only if the lens is dropped with the front element pointing down on a flat surface so a filter is very useful here.

I smashed my Hoya filter on the 24-105 when the camera was hanging by my side and I was going through a doorway, the camera swung around and the lens hit the doorknob flush on the front of the lens - the filter was smashed but took the impact pretty well saving the front element.

A filter is the one of the best insurance against impact on the front element of the lens.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Not sure about the writer on this thread who asserts that you can replace a front lens element for the cost of a good filter. My mail is delivered to a different planet. Ditto for the gentleman who claims that a lens hood is all the protection a lens needs. (I agree it's the first and best line of defense for the knocks, bumps and other physical slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but my world is sure a lot dirtier than his.) Try as I will I can't keep grease smudges, grit, condensation spots, etc., off the front of my lenses. And who hasn't had a lens cap--especially a Canon lens cap--fall off inside the camera bag, a presumed safe haven for lenses?

And that to me is the value of a good filter. Glass has an affinity for dirt. You gave up smoking and surprise, surprise, the inside of your windshield still gets that ugly film on it just from being exposed to the atmosphere. While I'm always amazed at the number of people who tote expensive DSLR bodies with horribly smudged lenses, most folks who are serious about photography want to shoot through clean glass. If you do, some part of the optical system has to get cleaned. And as they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing. If you can live with the dirt all over the business end of your camera, it won't damage your lens (unless it's caustic or arrives at sandblasting speed). It's the process of removing it that is at least mildly invasive and abrasive. Aside from the grit that's currently on the lens, there's all that residual stuff from previous cleanings. (It didn't just evaporate from your microfiber cloth, you know; in fact that clingy cloth probably picked up some additional material from the inside of your camera bag.) No matter how careful you are, it all gets dragged across the surface of whatever glass you're cleaning, and it all nano-etches. No one is claiming that a UV filter sharpens a lens, but neither would anyone claim that years of cleaning the front element improves a lens's optical performance.

I've had a couple of my lenses for seven years, and in that time I've cleaned the filters more than a hundred times. I plan to keep most of my lenses for the rest of my life, and I can foresee a possible need to replace filters at some point. What I won't ever have to do is worry about degraded performance from the lens elements themselves. The filter in front protects the lens not only from particular kinds of dirt, but almost eliminates general atmospheric contamination. I know that the surfaces beneath the filter are in pristine condition, because except for using a puff brush to remove the occasional mote of dust that sneaks in during a filter change, those elements, after an initial personal inspection, have never been touched, much less cleaned.

And for all you gonzo types who think filters are a collaborative scam of camera salesmen, here's a question to answer honestly: who would you really rather buy a five-year-old lens from: someone (like me) who obsesses a bit about protecting the exposed elements of his lenses, or someone like you?

Finally, it's not as if mounting a filter is an inconvenience, and for me the cost of a top-of-the-line filter is trivial, not because I have an unlimited budget, but because I have a very tight one. When I do take the plunge for a lens, it's for the "expensive as L" variety, and it's a lifetime investment. And if I've spent $1700 for a lens, why wouldn't I spend another $80 to maintain and optimize it's performance?

+1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

A lens hood cannot stop dust, dirt, grime, oil, grease, finger prints, water etc falling on the lens front element

Actually, a lens hood is superlative at stopping most of those things. Better than a filter, in fact.

No way! ... a lens front element, with a lens hood on, can still easily get scratches, grease, dirt and what not. But a filter on a the lens front element will ensure you don't easily get scratches, grease, dirt, dust grime etc on your front element. I agree that a lens hood provides additional protection (for both lens and the filter) from bumps, hits etc ... if I had to choose between a lens hood and a filter, I'd go with the filter, I can always use my hand or anything else to block light but I can't stop splashing sea water or other elements falling on my lens front elements without a filter.

 

[Studio1930]

We are getting a bit off subject, but I use both lens hoods and filters for protection. I was shooting in this past snow storm and the lens hood kept the snow off my 85L (not weather sealed) and my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The inside of the fuzzy hood was white with snow but the lens/filter was dry.