Will cheap UV filters still do the trick?

[Buckster]

...Also, how large a hood do you use? I am going to start shooting without a filter, maybe that is why one of lens tends to be soft. Thanks for sharing

The best hood is always the one that came with/is available for (by the lens maker) that lens.

Without evidence to support it, I would challenge that statement. There are third party manufacturers making lens hoods that seem to be just as good as those being sold with the Genuine (insert lens maker here) logo on them. It's a piece of plastic in the correct shape (circular or flower petal, depending on the lens), of the same thickness, sturdiness and fit to the lens - but a WHOLE LOT cheaper because you don't have to pay that premium for the brand name logo.

For all we know, they're all manufactured in the same plant, then stamped with different logos.

 

[molested_cow]

When my dad was getting a new TV, he went to specialized A/V stores to compare them side by side, playing the same videos to check the little difference they have. Sure, if you put them side by side, you notice the difference, but when else do you actually get to compare performance like that? Does it really matter?

So can you tell if a photo is with or without a UV filter?

Do you think about whether a photo was taken with or without a UV filter when you look at it?

If the answer to both is "no", then why should this even be a debate in the first place?

I use UV filters on all of my lens and I don't think about photo quality like that. However that's just me, and you have your own ways to make you happy.
What made me happy was when I took a photo of the rough sea the other day, I was able to capture the shot I wanted without worrying about "protection". All I had to do was to clean the salt spray from my filter that I forgot was already on. Hood? Sure it reduces lens flare and improves contrast, but only useful under specific conditions, having it on all the time limits me as a photographer. To say that hood is good as lens bumpers is a rather hard one to sell for me. One should be aware of his surroundings to begin with, and unless someone else hit your lens, all damages are due to YOU as a careless user. That goes the same for the guy who's friend dropped a camera on a crappy tripod and ended up blaming the filter. Seriously?

When you get a good photograph, you want the photographer to be credited. However you blame your equipment for bad quality? Come on!

To me, a filter and a hood are entirely different equipment. You cannot see one as a replacement as the other. It's apple and orange. No filter user really use filter as a "bumper". I certainly don't think I can be any less careful when I use a filter. To me, a protective filter allows me to do more, not less.

I've taken photos under situations when I need both. I think when you compare them, you are already taking them out of their intended context. If what you really care is about bump protection, well, wrap your lens with bubble wrap or something instead.

In the mean time, I'm going to keep on posting photos taken with UV filter on. May haters continue to hate!

 

[techniker]

So, what is the downside of using the lens hood?

And why can't you just clean salt spray off the objective lens? Wouldn't it be the same as cleaning it off of the filter?

Salt is never good to have on anything, aside from food, wounds and maybe with tequila, but I would be worried about it getting inside the body, under the flash, battery compartment, etc and in the parts of the lens that move like the focus ring and if you have a zoom lens. Is that a reasonable concern and are there measures to prevent this from happening?

The last thing I imagine being problematic is having dirt or salt on the actual lens because there's no way it can penetrate the glass to get inside coupled with the fact that it doesn't readily oxidize and is one of the hardest materials in known existence.

 

[Buckster]

I'm going to keep on posting photos taken with UV filter on. May haters continue to hate!

Calling us "haters" makes it seem like we disagree with your opinion just to be contentious, and that's not the case at all. From the many discussions this subject has had over the years, it's obvious that those who've decided not to use filters have put in just as much thought and experiment to come to their conclusion as those who choose to continue the practice.

Questions for you:

Can you tell just by looking at a photo if it was shot with a $600 lens or a $6000 lens?

Do you think about whether a photo was taken with $600 lens or a $6000 lens?

If the answer to both is "no", then why should anyone ever pay $6000 for a lens?

 

[ATVrider43]

I agree completely with the both of you! But yes i use a filter to protect as well. Sometimes people even take it with their phones and you can't really tell if it has good clarity and color

 

[PropilotBW]

Wow, NOW look what I've started!! OOPS!

This is definitely an awesome subject of debate. I just purchased a Nikkor 10-24, and was looking for filters for it...hence starting this thread. I will probably not buy a plain 'ol UV filter for it, after forum feedback, but I am definitely considering a Neutral Density, or Polarized, or both. Does the title of the thread still apply to Polarizing filters and ND filters? Cheap?... or fork over the dough? What do you recommend? This lens will be used mostly for Landscape photography (sunsets at beach, mountain views, etc). Do I even need this, or do I just think I do?

 

[JaronRH]

I can argue both ways. A few years ago I was hiking and dropped my 50mm lens. Since I had a UV filter on it though, the filter was destroyed but the lens itself didn't have anything wrong with it! However, I could definitely notice how a "multi-coated" UV lens was causing problem with ghosting and softness in my pictures so I've since stopped using them. Instead of a UV lens, I make it a point to use the lens hood as it usually offers enough protection. In addition to that, I've added my camera gear to my home insurance as "All Risk/All Peril" items so that if anything did happen to any of it for any reason, I would be completely covered (outside of my deductible anyway!).

 

[tirediron]

...Also, how large a hood do you use? I am going to start shooting without a filter, maybe that is why one of lens tends to be soft. Thanks for sharing

The best hood is always the one that came with/is available for (by the lens maker) that lens.

Without evidence to support it, I would challenge that statement. There are third party manufacturers making lens hoods that seem to be just as good as those being sold with the Genuine (insert lens maker here) logo on them. It's a piece of plastic in the correct shape (circular or flower petal, depending on the lens), of the same thickness, sturdiness and fit to the lens - but a WHOLE LOT cheaper because you don't have to pay that premium for the brand name logo.

For all we know, they're all manufactured in the same plant, then stamped with different logos.

Fair comment; it doesn't have to be OEM equipment, but I would submit that it does need to be OEM design since I doubt very much whether too many third-party manufacturers are going to go to the trouble of mapping out the optimum pattern & dimensions, especially on the petal-shaped hoods for some of the better UWAs.

 

[tirediron]

... having it [the lens hood] on all the time limits me as a photographer...

I'm curious to know how you feel you limited when using a lens hood (not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious).

 

[cgipson1]

... having it [the lens hood] on all the time limits me as a photographer...

I'm curious to know how you feel you limited when using a lens hood (not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious).

I was "curious" about that too! lol! Maybe he likes lens flare?

 

[Buckster]

The best hood is always the one that came with/is available for (by the lens maker) that lens.

Without evidence to support it, I would challenge that statement. There are third party manufacturers making lens hoods that seem to be just as good as those being sold with the Genuine (insert lens maker here) logo on them. It's a piece of plastic in the correct shape (circular or flower petal, depending on the lens), of the same thickness, sturdiness and fit to the lens - but a WHOLE LOT cheaper because you don't have to pay that premium for the brand name logo.

For all we know, they're all manufactured in the same plant, then stamped with different logos.

Fair comment; it doesn't have to be OEM equipment, but I would submit that it does need to be OEM design since I doubt very much whether too many third-party manufacturers are going to go to the trouble of mapping out the optimum pattern & dimensions, especially on the petal-shaped hoods for some of the better UWAs.

Your doubts notwithstanding, they appear to be copying the petal hoods just fine.

 

[Buckster]

... having it [the lens hood] on all the time limits me as a photographer...

I'm curious to know how you feel you limited when using a lens hood (not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious).

I was "curious" about that too! lol!

Me three.

 

[tirediron]

Your doubts notwithstanding, they appear to be copying the petal hoods just fine.

I'm sure they are; that's what I meant, as long as they're copying an OEM design, fine, but I'm not sure I'd want to use some generic petal-hood on my UWA.

 

[Buckster]

Your doubts notwithstanding, they appear to be copying the petal hoods just fine.

I'm sure they are; that's what I meant, as long as they're copying an OEM design, fine, but I'm not sure I'd want to use some generic petal-hood on my UWA.

I guess I just don't know where the line is between "generic" and "third party".

Perhaps you could split that hair for me?

 

[pixmedic1]

Your doubts notwithstanding, they appear to be copying the petal hoods just fine.

I'm sure they are; that's what I meant, as long as they're copying an OEM design, fine, but I'm not sure I'd want to use some generic petal-hood on my UWA.

I guess I just don't know where the line is between "generic" and "third party".

Perhaps you could split that hair for me?

holy cow people...
how about we just leave it at some people just prefer OEM accessories since is was specifically designed for that equipment.
just like some people only get OEM parts for their car.
maybe some people just like the stamped on name to match.