Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Reason enough to use a UV filter...

Comments

  • #2
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,665 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Ouch...

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #3
    Fenster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,763 ✭✭✭Fenster


    I second the ouch


  • #4
    thebaz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,744 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    on the negative side , i wonder is it a co-incidence that i get a lot more flare with my uv filter on ?
    Apart from protecting lens , does the uv filter add any other positives ?


  • #5
    Valentia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    I'm with you baz. What is the point in paying a handy sum for decent glass only to stick a piece of tuppence halfpenny stuff in front of it? I'd prefer to pay a few bob for insurance especially as UV filters on digital cameras serve no other useful purpose. One of the reasons Canon L lenses are expensive is the quality of the glass so the logic of comprimising that glass by pernanantly having a filter on doesn't make sense. The occassional use for a polarisor, IR or whatever is unavoidable.

    It seems to me that whatever broke the lens above it would have got through the UV filter as well.


  • #6
    mathias
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭mathias


    I agree , I dont use filters , but do have camera equipment insurance , however I think thats a filter thats broke in the picture , not the lens lads !


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    The glass in the lens above is grand, only the filter is broken...

    Insurance is all well and good, but if this were to happen to you in the middle of something you're being paid for...and you need the lens - It wouldn't go down too well.

    I'm fully in agreement that you shouldn't stick cheap filters on your lenses..which is why I top quality ones...


  • #8
    Valentia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    Oops :o Didn't notice that. I don't plan one ever ever doing a job for money again though so I'll take my chances, I think.

    Al, what would be the best make for filters?


  • #9
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    B+W without a doubt.

    You definitly pay for it, but you do get quality.


  • #10
    Fenster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,763 ✭✭✭Fenster


    Fajitas! wrote:
    B+W without a doubt.

    You definitly pay for it, but you do get quality.

    Link prz :[


  • #11
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/bwfilters.htm

    B+W UV Filter, 58mm, ex tax works out being 35 quidish.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    ThOnda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭ThOnda


    I think that it is essential to wear a UV filter. It is not only UV filter, but also the mechanical protection.

    And about some bad effects. I do not have any. I am using the bes filters in the world - the PENTAX ones with SMC coating. I am shooting directly into the sun or lamps and I have no more effects in my pictures. Not to mention that my lense has no effect either.

    I would feel prettty unprotected not having a filter on...

    Good luck with the filter, it saved you a lot. Not only the lense. Those accidents usually happen when you have camera on strap over zour shoulder and you are turning or bending dosn for something. Hitting the table or the doors is my favourite sport.


  • #13
    Valentia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    ThOnda. Point taken. Just a small point though. Digital SLRs alteady have a UV filter built is as far as I know so the filter is not needed for that purpose.


  • #14
    Fajitas!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    ThOnda wrote:
    I think that it is essential to wear a UV filter. It is not only UV filter, but also the mechanical protection.

    And about some bad effects. I do not have any. I am using the bes filters in the world - the PENTAX ones with SMC coating. I am shooting directly into the sun or lamps and I have no more effects in my pictures. Not to mention that my lense has no effect either.

    I would feel prettty unprotected not having a filter on...

    Good luck with the filter, it saved you a lot. Not only the lense. Those accidents usually happen when you have camera on strap over zour shoulder and you are turning or bending dosn for something. Hitting the table or the doors is my favourite sport.

    Lol, oh, I should have said, it's not my camera!!!

    They're also said to reduce image quality...I've been printing @A1, with no loss... Should be bringing it into A0 with one or two shoots coming up.


  • #15
    ThOnda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭ThOnda


    Yes, I know.
    What filter has no effect on picture quality and does not reduce amount of light going through the lense (so much). IMHO none.
    It is a good custom (or a habit) from the film cameras. You cannot harm your pictures or camera with UV filter. Well, definitely less than by using Skylight or polarizer.


Advertisement