Do You Use Filters?

[Braineack]

UV to protect the lens and sensor.

how is a UV filter protecting the lens and sensor?

Accidental scratches on the front of the lens. I have not looked recently but older CMOS microlenses on the chip can fog due to UV due to light concentration.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

The coating on modern lenses isn't going to scratch -- there's greater chances of scratching a lens, however, due to thousands of shards of your shattered UV filter. IMHO, a lens hood does a much better job of protecting the front element.

modern sensors already have a UV/IR filter on them -- adding one in front of the lens is just a way to introduce ghost flares and lower the IQ.

 

[n614cd]

The coating on modern lenses isn't going to scratch -- there's greater chances of scratching a lens, however, due to thousands of shards of your shattered UV filter. IMHO, a lens hood does a much better job of protecting the front element.

modern sensors already have a UV/IR filter on them -- adding one in front of the lens is just a way to introduce ghost flares and lower the IQ.

My better lenses and body are from late 2013. Not sure if this qualifies as modern.
At the time, I was told CMOS had fogging issues, and the built in UV filters are inadaquate.
I always leave the hood on for that reason. I have never seen a ghost flare in all the pictures I have taken with these lenses.

I had no idea adding a UV lens will lower my intelligence.... That may explain why I am thinking of getting new equipment...

Tim (last one I could not resist)

 

[smoke665]

@n614cd I also thought like you for years. When I went to digital I faithfully continued to use my UV filters. When I started noticing softness in my images, I traced it to the cheap glass I was putting on the front of my expensive lens. Haven't used them since, except that I occasionally use one to make a soft focus filter. You can smear Vaseline around on them and not worry.

 

[n614cd]

@n614cd I also thought like you for years. When I went to digital I faithfully continued to use my UV filters. When I started noticing softness in my images, I traced it to the cheap glass I was putting on the front of my expensive lens. Haven't used them since, except that I occasionally use one to make a soft focus filter. You can smear Vaseline around on them and not worry.

Interesting, I have to try that one day. Take two pics one with and one without the lens filter.
However, I did not pick cheap lens filters, I went with Zeiss for the filters and Sigma ART series for lenses.

Tim

 

[mrca]

I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk. Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses? And no scratches from the broken filter glass on the front element. I carry a circular polarizer and for landscape, it removes the glare from foliage making it's color more saturated. I use an 8 stop ND with my strobes outside to knock down intensity of a background then power up on the subject. It enables me to shoot at 1.4 and 1/20 sec in broad daylight, really pushing the limits to shoot wide open in full sun yet blur moving water in the bg. When shooting MF film, may use a nd grad.

 

[480sparky]

I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk. Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses? .........

Yet........ what PROOF do you have that your front element would have sustained damage sans a filter?

 

[Derrel]

I have 2 clear filters that are shattered on my desk. Cost $140 but was able to remove them and shoot. Front element repair at Nikon, what about $300 each and I would be without my lenses? .........

Yet........ what PROOF do you have that your front element would have sustained damage sans a filter?

Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.

If one thinks he or she is going to "accidentally scratch" a front element, think again. Unless one uses, say, a synthetic diamond-tipped shop tool or something similar.

 

[SquarePeg]

I used a CPL for most of the foliage shots I took this year. I did a couple of side by side comparisons with/without and it was very effective at improving the images because the day I was out was very sunny at times.

 

[smoke665]

Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND

I'm not a Canon fan, but this video caused me some serious pucker. Holy cow I wouldn't even do that to a junk lens!!!

 

[480sparky]

Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.

If one thinks he or she is going to "accidentally scratch" a front element, think again. Unless one uses, say, a synthetic diamond-tipped shop tool or something similar.

And then theres:

 

[n614cd]

Look how _astoundingly tough_ the front element glass is in this Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens! Jeepers--this thing absorbs blow after blow from the hammer-face AND the claw of a small hammer--without any significant damage until wayyyyyy into this torturous abuse.

If one thinks he or she is going to "accidentally scratch" a front element, think again. Unless one uses, say, a synthetic diamond-tipped shop tool or something similar.

And then theres:

Very interesting....

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

The filters I use most often are my over-sized Nikon circular polarizers...they are larger in diameter than the filter thread size. I do not use these except for landscape/seascape uses...I don't shoot that much landscape stuff any more, but when I'm feeling "serious" about it, I like to have the CPL on there. I've given away most of my graduated filters. Ehhh...I guess I'm too lazy, and besides, the newer digital cameras I have offer so much wider latitude than the color slide film that I originally bought the filters for...

 

[mrca]

So are you going to pound the front element of an expensive lens with a hammer? If you are trying to tell me that front elements are indestructible, I have a bridge for you. They are GLASS. The protective filters sit about a quarter of an inch from the front element and as I watched the camera swing into the corner of a table and break the filter, what makes you think the front element wouldn't be impacted and break either? Is your proof some hooky video? Or at minimum sustain a serious scratch or damage to the coating? What does that do to the value of you lens? Oh, there are two broken filters on my desk because the camera repair guy I had to use to get the THIRD off a lens tossed it.

 

[Overread]

mrca watch the video Sparky links and watch it all the way through, it gives a great summary about the practical protective nature of the UV filter. About the only thing it misses is that with the UV filter there's an increased chance of more stratches on the front element with a UV filter as a result of a break because you're shattering glass which is highly abrasive. So a lighter bump, that wouldn't break or damage the front element, could easily break the filter and then go on to scratch up the lens front element.

The point is the UV filter is mostly going to protect against things like water, dust, sand etc... Ergo light material and low levels of liquids (eg spray). Where those materials are abrasive (eg salt water or sand) it does indeed give you a nice safe surface that you can wipe clean without worry about scratches appearing on your lens. In that case the filter (UV/Clear glass) is giving you a real protection.
But it can't protect against impacts - it shatters far earlier than the front element would which increase damage potential, whilst also not really offering any practical protection against any impact that would otherwise damage the lens elsewhere.


They are not useless, but they are not offering much if any real protection against any serious impacts.






As for myself and filters I use a circular polarizer as the effect of cutting out reflections can't be mirrored in editing. I'd also use Neutral Density filters and Graduated ND filters if I had them. Whilst some of the effects those filters make can be mirrored in editing and some can be superior*, there are cases (eg blurry water) where you cannot get the effect without the filter (blurry water being a case where an ND filter cuts light entering the lens, letting you use a slower shutter speed - esp if you wanted to use a wider aperture for creative reasons and/or the ambient light is still too high even if you choose a smaller aperture)

*eg an ND Grad can be great at exposing sea and sky in a single frame with both properly exposed, which can be very pleasing to achieve. However two photos and software combining the exposure of both can be superior if you were doing the same type of photo (ergo two differently lit subjects) where the meeting line between the two is very jagged and irregular (eg a landscape with lots of tall and short terrain features at random)

 

[smoke665]

Other then ND and CPL any one else with experience using both CPL and warming/cooling filters. After surgery, I've found the light outside really bright. On the suggestion of a friend I bought some of the "As seen on TV" amber tactical glasses. They took care of the brightness, but the biggest shocker was the difference in details in the shadows, I could now see. I'm wondering if a stacked CPL and warming filter would do the same to a digital sensor.