Yayyy new lenses and question about filters?

[benhasajeep]

Omg. That is sooo much information I appreciate you so much. My camera came with a uv protective filter as well as a full set of color filters. I haven't touched them yet. I guess I don't have hoods for all of my lenses yet I have got 1. And 3 lenses.

Throw away those filters! Yes, even without you telling me their brand. I know they are subpar extremely cheap filters. Going by your posts I believe you bought one of those "kits" that sellers put together with a lot of items in it. Makes it look like your getting a lot for your money. But in reality they are very cheap nearly worthless items.

If you want to have a UV filter or a clear filter on your lens. Make sure it is a good quality one with multi-coating. If you can't afford to buy one for each of your lenses. And their filter rings are different size. Buy a filter for your biggest lens (filter ring size). And then buy adapter rings to fit the larger filter down to the smaller lens filter sizes. You can just swap over the filters to each lens. The adapter rings are like $7 to $12. Your lens caps will protect the lenses not being used! So, you only need 1 filter of each type really. As mentioned before a circular polarizer is a very handy filter. Has many uses. B&W and Heliopan make very good filters. Hoya has a good line of filters but you have to wade through all their different series to find their best line. They have several lines of filters. And their lower lines have a lot to be desired. Tiffen as far as I am concerned, are emergency use only (your on the road and you damaged your good one, and it's the only ones sold)! Even if others by other names say they are MC or multicoated skip over them. Nikon does make filters, but price wise might as well stick with B&W or Heliopan. I my self have many B&W, a couple Heliopan's, and a couple Hoya Pro1-D filters.

 

[480sparky]

And I have yet to see any truly empirical data to prove filters 'save' lenses.

 

[Designer]

..no downside ..

Oh, and that pesky poor optical performance.

How many times when we talked someone out of their UV filter who then gets better photographs?

Those are usually the cheapie filters that come with a 100-piece starter kit.

 

[fmw]

And I have yet to see any truly empirical data to prove filters 'save' lenses.

Input rejected. Sorry.

 

[fmw]

..no downside ..

Oh, and that pesky poor optical performance.

How many times when we talked someone out of their UV filter who then gets better photographs?

Those are usually the cheapie filters that come with a 100-piece starter kit.

So do you have some empirical data that UV filters prevent "better photographs?" Of course not. There isn't any.

 

[480sparky]

..no downside ..

Oh, and that pesky poor optical performance.

How many times when we talked someone out of their UV filter who then gets better photographs?

Those are usually the cheapie filters that come with a 100-piece starter kit.

So do you have some empirical data that UV filters prevent "better photographs?" Of course not. There isn't any.

Um, actually, yes. One merely has to OPEN THEIR EYES.

But alas, some refuse to see.

 

[Designer]

So do you have some empirical data that UV filters prevent "better photographs?" Of course not. There isn't any.

Not all or any UV filters, but as I ALREADY WROTE; usually the cheapies that come with those 100-piece kits. And no empirical evidence that I am aware of, but plenty of anecdotal "evidence".

 

[fmw]

Have any of you done any tests to discover degraded image quality from UV filters? I have and I didn't encounter any. By the way I have tested both cheap and expensive filters. My conclusion is that the expensive ones are overpriced. A UV filter is nothing more than a flat piece of optical glass, after all.

 

[weepete]

UV filters have 2 uses as far as digital is concerned, handy coasters and seperating the money from photographers wallets. But hey, use them if you like, it's not my cash you'll be spending.

 

[tecboy]

I have experimented a cheap uv filter. It does lose sharpness in photograph when you zoom in 1:1 ratio in Lightroom.

 

[benhasajeep]

Have any of you done any tests to discover degraded image quality from UV filters? I have and I didn't encounter any. By the way I have tested both cheap and expensive filters. My conclusion is that the expensive ones are overpriced. A UV filter is nothing more than a flat piece of optical glass, after all.

Not everyone uses optical glass in their filters. And not everyone multi-coats them with something that actually works! A piece of bad glass with bad or non-existant coating can and will ruin pictures.

 

[adamhiram]

I'll add my vote to the "use a filter" camp, although totally optional, not a necessity. I have a toddler who constantly tries to touch the front element, and more often than not I find myself shooting in areas with a lot of dust/pollen/airborne debris. I've always felt that any degradation to image quality is negligible with a quality filter, and in the rare occasion where I see glare from a direct light source, it's easy enough to remove. Just don't cheap out on the filter. B+W MRC clear or UV haze filters are decent. Hoya makes some good ones too. Stay away from the cheap Tiffen filters that are often bundled for free unless you want lens flare in every shot.

 

[480sparky]

Not everyone uses optical glass in their filters. ........

And not everyone knows there's a difference between a $3 filter and a $100 one.

 

[fmw]

Have any of you done any tests to discover degraded image quality from UV filters? I have and I didn't encounter any. By the way I have tested both cheap and expensive filters. My conclusion is that the expensive ones are overpriced. A UV filter is nothing more than a flat piece of optical glass, after all.

Not everyone uses optical glass in their filters. And not everyone multi-coats them with something that actually works! A piece of bad glass with bad or non-existant coating can and will ruin pictures.

You could be right but I have never encountered a UV filter that reduced image quality. If you have, please provide the brand so people can avoid it.

 

[benhasajeep]

Have any of you done any tests to discover degraded image quality from UV filters? I have and I didn't encounter any. By the way I have tested both cheap and expensive filters. My conclusion is that the expensive ones are overpriced. A UV filter is nothing more than a flat piece of optical glass, after all.

Not everyone uses optical glass in their filters. And not everyone multi-coats them with something that actually works! A piece of bad glass with bad or non-existant coating can and will ruin pictures.

You could be right but I have never encountered a UV filter that reduced image quality. If you have, please provide the brand so people can avoid it.

Actually that's the hard part. There are so many out there that are made by a manufacturer and will put what ever name you want on it. Ebay, Amazon, even some of the larger online photo stores sell them under many different names. Especially in those kits full of ultra cheap gear to make them look like good deals.