Lens Filter

[fmw]

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

Who said anything about buying a low cost UV filter?

 

[robbins.photo]

Who said anything about buying a low cost UV filter?

I did.. in the very post you responded too in fact. From that posting:

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.

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.

The entire point of the post was to let the OP know that if they did decide to use a UV filter, that they shouldn't consider using a cheap one. I still don't recommend UV filters, even the expensive variety.. but if you insist on using one don't get the low cost ones.

 

[fmw]

Thanks for the advice.

 

[astroNikon]

If you are in a store you can easily check a UV filter by holding it up to something that has a lot of detail - small print, etc. Then compare the detail with and without the filter. That will give you an idea of what is being lost IQ-wise depending upon the quality of the filter.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for the advice.

Well, it was actually more for the benefit the OP, who actually asked for advice. But, you're welcome.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

I use 'Protective Filters' on all my lenses as opposed to a UV filter. Years ago, I performed a filter test with a Canon 1DsMKII. I shot the same scene with a cheap filter, an expensive filter and no filter. At 100% there was no significant difference between any of the images. The 1DsMKII has a 16mp sensor. I haven't repeated the test with a higher MP camera.

If I shot in a controlled environment, I wouldn't use protective filters. But I don't, I shoot in the great outdoors, in all conditions and I don't like the fear of bruising a camera stand between me and the the shot I desire. There is more to screwing up a front element/lens than a violent hit. There are airborne abrasives, chemicals, grease, liquids, et al. All kinds of stuff that could potentially be harmful. Many manufacturers of weather-sealed lenses state that to properly weather-seal the lens you need to use a protective filter. I also strongly recommend to use a hood to reduce flare, increase contrast, adds additional protection and the right hood make the camera/len look a lot sexier. Hoods are designed to match specific lenses, so do your research.

Having personally lost a few protective filters and a lens or two, I am probably a bit on the paranoid side of this argument. But I think a high end Protective Filter is pretty cheap insurance. The difference in filter pricing generally reflects the coatings, the greater the price the more coatings. More coatings lessen the propensity of lens flaring and ghosting, but does not eliminate that side effect. When that does occur, I either reposition the camera or remove the filter.

While it was pointed out earlier that the lens you have is relatively cheap, I think the greater price you may pay comes in the form of missing shots, rather than replacing a lens.

I also believe in Murphy ... I know that sooner or later one of my unprotected lens would get screwed up ... so for me it is cheap insurance and to keep Murphy at bay. (I guess that's redundant.)

 

[fmw]

Now we have two of us on the unpopular side. I would mention that a UV filter is plain, clear glass. A protective filter is another name for the same thing. All glass rejects most of the UV frequencies.

 

[pixmedic11 11]

UV filters work great!
I use them all the time.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky54 53]

UV filters work great!
I use them all the time.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

Um.......... that's a skylight filter, not a UV.

 

[pixmedic11 11]

UV filters work great!
I use them all the time.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

Um.......... that's a skylight filter, not a UV.

Dang..grabbed the wrong one.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

Kodak - 3:16
And on the 8th day God looked around and saw a plethora of clumsy photographers and he said, "Let there be insurance," and it was so. And God saw that insurance was good, for the clumsy photographers were able to repair or replace the lenses that the clumsy photographers paid no attention too, instead of degrading the images of the wonders that God had created with cheap filters.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

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.

Not disagreeing with you just looking at some photography at a different angle.
I photography fine furniture, pool cues, and sometimes its hard to see the wood through the glass like finish.
Almost all of my product photography I use a technic called cross polarization.

This is where you put linear polarized film over your soft boxes and a CPL on your lens .

This technic is used to filter out the electromagnetic polarized waves .
Because when polarized light strikes all non metallic smooth surfaces it creates polarized reflection. ( glare )

From my point of view the only reason to use a UV filter would be to minimize reflection. ( white out )
The big problem is normally the majority of reflection ( Glare white out )
is caused by polarized light and UV reflection make up a very small part of glare or reflection.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

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).

Try buying Cpl's and ND filters for a canon TSE 17mm lens.
Canon doesn't make a lens hood for this lens because its field of view is so wide .
Amazon.com : WonderPana 145 Essentials Kit - 145mm Filter Holder, Lens Cap & CPL Filter for Canon 17mm TS-E Tilt/Shift f/4L (Full Frame) : Camera Lens Filter Sets : Camera & Photo

 

[pixmedic11 11]

Can't you just get a scrap piece of window tint and stick it on a clear filter?

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[snowbear130 61]

Can't you just get a scrap piece of window tint and stick it on a clear filter?

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

VHT Nite-Shades™-- Specialty Products