Lens Filter

[skyakash]

Hi, I just bought a Nikon D3300 with 18-55 mm lens. i want to know should I buy a UV Filter like HOYA 52 mm or such. And do I need to buy any other items, guard or anything now, that doesn't come with the Box.

any helps will be appreciated.

 

[astroNikon]

Use the lens hood
skip any UV filters since you aren't using film, and the store probably wanted you to buy a cheapo filter anyways which pads their pockets. You know, buy accessories before you leave the store speel ...

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi, I just bought a Nikon D3300 with 18-55 mm lens. i want to know should I buy a UV Filter like HOYA 52 mm or such. And do I need to buy any other items, guard or anything now, that doesn't come with the Box.

any helps will be appreciated.

Like Astro I don't recommend the UV filter. What I do recommend is to shoot with the basic camera and kit lens for a while, and take some time learning photography. Then when your ready, start buying equipment you'll actually need and use based on what you've found you need but don't yet have.

 

[Designer]

Hi, I just bought a Nikon D3300 with 18-55 mm lens. i want to know should I buy a UV Filter like HOYA 52 mm or such. And do I need to buy any other items, guard or anything now, that doesn't come with the Box.

any helps will be appreciated.

My lens (bought new) did not come with a lens hood, and I think if you need a hood you'll be looking for one of those third-party rubber ones.

Frankly, I think some people worry about the lens too much. Can the coatings become scratched? Yes, with careless actions. The coatings can also be worn thin with too much lens cleaning, or using the wrong technique.

My advice is to not worry about the front of the lens. I clean mine once in a while, maybe every 6 months or so, and I do it with the proper technique and materials.

If you find yourself out making photographs in a sandstorm, then maybe put on a UV filter or something, but for most of the time, just leave it naked.

As for the glass itself, just don't worry about it.

Maybe if I had invested in a $6,000.00 lens, I might start to become paranoid about the front element, but really, the 18-55 is so cheap that if it really was ruined in a sandstorm, I'd just buy another one.

Here is a video of someone trying to smash a camera lens.

 

[zombiesniper]

UV filters really don't do much other that put more glass in front of the sensor.

Designer, remind me not to loan any gear to whoever made that video.

 

[TCampbell]

Your camera already has an internal UV & IR filter just in front of the sensor. The original purpose of these filters was to block light which wasn't in the "visible" spectrum for humans (but film could be sensitive to it anyway) BECAUSE the light at different wavelengths focuses at different distances. So literally your images would look very slightly out of focus in the image due to light your eye can't even see in real life.

But now that the camera has a built-in filter, there's no need to put the filter in front of the lens. Some people want it for protection though there are many arguments that claim that's not such a good idea. I can think of a few exceptions, but most of the time the lens filter will degrade the image quality rather than help it and won't really offer protection in most circumstances.

The biggest problem, however, is "ghosting". Glass surfaces are reflective. They all act at least a little bit like a mirror. The reason you can see a reflection of yourself in "clear" glass is because that glass technically reflects some of the light trying to pass through (you never get 100% transmission). If you have a filter, the light that passes through can reflect off the front of your lens, onto the flat filter surface, and reflect BACK into the lens again... creating a "ghost" reflection in your image that degrades image quality.

The best defense against this problem is to not use the filter at all. The 2nd best defense against this is to decide that if you really must use a filter, buy a higher quality filter with good anti-reflective properties (that will substantially reduce the reflections... but it won't completely eliminate it.)

Here's an example:

The filter on the left is an expensive filter and lacks anti-reflective coatings. The filter on the right is a high-end UV filter that includes the anti-reflective coatings.

Notice the black card-stock below the filters. On the left you can see the glass is giving off a shine that reducing contrast to the black card-stock below. On the right you can see the card-stock so clearly that it almost looks as if I've just placed the black filter "ring" on the paper and there isn't any glass in it (there is.. it's just hard to see because the glass doesn't provide much of a reflection). That's the anti-reflective property you want in a good quality filter.

While I do own these filters, I don't leave them on my lenses. I'll use a filter only if and when I think the situation merits it.

 

[skyakash]

then how to protect lens from accidental smudges? as i am a beginner, say sometimes the hand gets in the way while manually focusing.
if i use lens hood, is any lens hood is okay?

 

[astroNikon]

then how to protect lens from accidental smudges? as i am a beginner, say sometimes the hand gets in the way while manually focusing.
if i use lens hood, is any lens hood is okay?

Don't stick your finger on the lens.
The lens hood would help keep your fingers away from the outside element.

Wouldn't a filter get finger smudges too ?? Still have to learn to properly clean it. If you clean a cheap filter you would more than likely scratch it easily. But more than likely a small smudge won't affect the image.

 

[Alexr25]

As others have said keep away from UV filters, they cause more problems than they solve, but get yourself a lens hood.
Assuming you have a 18- 55mm AF-S DX f/3.5-5.6 G VRII lens, you need a Nikon HB-69 lens hood, I would not go for the cheap rubber screw-in hood as it will in all likelihood cause vignetting towards the 18mm end of the zoom range.

 

[fmw]

Somebody needs to support the unpopular position, I guess. I've been doing photography for 55 years and I always buy UV filters for my lenses. If I'm going to hit something physically with the lens I would rather break a filter than a lens front element. I once broke a front element on a $1100 lens. The lens hood can protect against most issues like this but not all of them. I have some rubber lens hoods, for instance. The only possible downside to using a clear filter is the possibility of flare when shooting into the light source but to say that is rare is an understatement. I agree that it isn't necessary. UV filters do give me a certain sense of comfort and there isn't really any downside to them.

 

[robbins.photo]

Somebody needs to support the unpopular position, I guess. I've been doing photography for 55 years and I always buy UV filters for my lenses. If I'm going to hit something physically with the lens I would rather break a filter than a lens front element. I once broke a front element on a $1100 lens. The lens hood can protect against most issues like this but not all of them. I have some rubber lens hoods, for instance. The only possible downside to using a clear filter is the possibility of flare when shooting into the light source but to say that is rare is an understatement. I agree that it isn't necessary. UV filters do give me a certain sense of comfort and there isn't really any downside to them.

Fred, I would have to disagree, at least in regards to the common UV filters on the market combined with some of the higher mp cameras available today. A while back when I bought my first digital SLR after a long hiatues from photography, I bought a used D5100 that came with a kit lens and an inexpensive UV filter. I shot with the filter both on and off, didn't seem to make much difference. Later on I upgraded to a D5200 with a 24 mp sensor, and I could tell a noticeable difference between shooting with the filter on as opposed to shooting without it. There was a noticeable drop in IQ even in situations where there was not flaring involved.

I haven't tried a super hi end UV filter, something made by say B+W perhaps - so I don't know if something top of the line might alleviate that issue or not. But I can say that at least with the more cost effective UV filters on a higher MP sensor the effect is noticeable.

 

[fmw]

If you lose resolution through a filter then it isn't flat across the entire surface or varies in thickness. I've sold hundreds of stock photos made with a 35mm camera on Kodachrome without the slightest issue of image quality through a UV filter. Most of my filters are Nikon brand so I can recommend those at least. I do have some B+W UV glass as well and I can recommend that brand also. I can think of only a half dozen times that I have had to remove a filter to prevent flare. I have never encountered the slightest loss of resolution through a UV filter. Obviously the lens protectors aren't critical but I don't think they hurt anything either unless they are defective. The OP can go either way in my viw.

 

[robbins.photo]

The OP can go either way in my viw.

Again, I would disagree. The OP can naturally choose to go any direction they want, however they should be aware that if you are purchasing a low cost UV filter and using it on a high mp sensor, that you will see a noticeable loss in IQ.

So, if the OP decides that a UV filter is necessary, and they are using a higher MP camera, they should be aware of this. As to using a UV filter to "protect" the lens, well other than in a sandstorm or some other instance where your encountering a lot of flying debris, the odds that a UV filter will save your lens from anything are fairly low:

Do UV Filters Really Protect Your Lens? Shocker: Not Really | Fstoppers

 

[Stradawhovious]

I don't use a filter, unless it's designed for a specific purpose... i.e. ND, polarization, gradient etc... but even then, I can count the number of times a filter hits one of my lenses per year on one hand.

 

[astroNikon]

Most people are not buying quality UV filters.
They are buying the stuff the person at BestBuy are selling them. Which usually are plastic or maybe glass. They tried to sell me one for $4.99. Not quite B+W (which I have many filters from, also Nikon & Heliopan).