UV filters???

RHD

I'm the proud mama of a shiny new 40D , but am wondering should I use a UV filter to protect the lens ??? Some say YES!!!! always .. but then guy in shop today told me not recommended :rolleyes:. Your opinions please . I'm a beginner and find this forum has become my bible !!!!!! I take 90% of my photos in the great outdoors watching horses so wind and rain is the norm !!

ThOnda

Multi coated lens. In rain, dust and bouncing on your neck. Cleaned regularly with some kind of (microfibre) cloth. Price of the lens few hundred Euro.
Multi coated UV filter of good quality. In rain, dust and bouncing on your neck. Cleaned regularly with some kind of (microfibre) cloth. Price of the filter few Euro.

What was the question? :pac:

houseoffun14

A good quailty UV is a worth it in my opinion. Apart from intended use they also add protection to the front element of the lens. For example earlier this year, I dropped my 70-200F4L in the back of my car. The UV filter cracked but the glass behind the lens was fine.

However sometimes when using a wide angle lens with ND filters I will remove the UV to reduce the risk of vignetting.

CabanSail

I always have a UV or CPL on my lenses. Have had one CPL sacrifice itself to save my 18-200 VR Lens already.... pity it wasn't a UV but still better than losing the lens.

TheNorthBank

I recently bought a 70-200F4L and asked about using a UV filter (I have one on my kit lens btw, 18-55 IS) and the guy told me, and I quote "Whats the point in paying money fo L quality glass and then compromising it by using a filter?"

Does this arguement hold any water? Because if not I'd like to use a UV filter to protect my new baby!

Fajitas!

There's plenty of people willing to argue for and against.

Yes, putting cheap glass in front of your lens will compromise some of the image quality.

Yes, putting an extra barrier against the front of your lens could well save you a repair job, or indeed, buying a new lens.

You've gotta decide what's more important. I have a UV filter on all my lenses, but I don't exactly go easy on my gear. I've saved myself a fair bit on repairs. I've never really pixel peeped enough to see if it's compromised sharpness, etc, but hey - I'm still getting the photos I want.

ThOnda

Nobody says that you have to have the filter on the lens all the time. If you are in situation when you can doubt it's protection and effect on your images (like in studio with lots of lights), you can always remove it.

Phototoxin

I vote YES. I've only ever had to directly clean one of my lenses once because I have UVs on it. But yes decent UVs are important. low quality rubbish will effect your image.

Also if you take a photo for forensic purposes you need to state that you had that filter on it.

dinneenp

Hi,
I've just ordered a Panasonic FZ28 and want to get a lens protector.
can some explain in laymans terms the differences between different ones- UV, Polarized etc and which I would use when.

Can anyone recommend a site to purchase them and microfilter cloths?

Thanks,
Patrick.

CabanSail

UV Filter is now just a Lens Protector to go on the front of a Lens.

Circular Polariser (or CPL) is used to remove reflection & glare. It also gives more definition to clouds & can improve saturation. Mainly used outdoors. You will loose about a stop through & CPL. Take the UV off before fitting the CPL or you may get vignetting.

I have bought mine at the 7dayshop. You will just need to know the thread size for your lens.

superflyninja

I also use a UV filter and was advised to by the guy in the shop for lenses protection....UV lenses can give more accurate colour on reflectiosn though dont they?

Paulw

superflyninja wrote: »

I also use a UV filter and was advised to by the guy in the shop for lenses protection....UV lenses can give more accurate colour on reflectiosn though dont they?

UV filters should do nothing at all to the image, in terms of colour, etc. They are supposed to filter out UV, but your sensor already does this.

shepthedog

Always keep one in front of my lenses... Protests from scratches, dirt etc... Just wipe clean..

Which would you rather replace? A UV filter or your lens?

superflyninja

Paulw wrote: »

UV filters should do nothing at all to the image, in terms of colour, etc. They are supposed to filter out UV, but your sensor already does this.

ah i see!!!!! I saw on a website, it showed photos of the alps(blue sky,snow) with and without uv.....without uv had a blue tint on the snow

jpfahy

I usually shoot naked if I can but put on a UV if I'm expecting rain or dust. BTW if you are going to use a filter get a good quality one like Hoya (not Hama) and don't buy on eBay as its full of fakes

Paulw

superflyninja wrote: »

ah i see!!!!! I saw on a website, it showed photos of the alps(blue sky,snow) with and without uv.....without uv had a blue tint on the snow

That sounds more like a polarising filter than a UV filter.

shepthedog

jpfahy wrote: »

I usually shoot naked if I can but put on a UV if I'm expecting rain or dust. BTW if you are going to use a filter get a good quality one like Hoya (not Hama) and don't buy on eBay as its full of fakes

Have you had bad experiences with HAMA? I understood they were not that bad..

jpfahy

shepthedog wrote: »

Have you had bad experiences with HAMA? I understood they were not that bad..

No point in sticking a 20 euro filter in front of a 1000 euro lens, you might as well take your photos through the window of the car

shepthedog

Have you personally had a bad experience though or is it just preference over price?

I would often agree that in most situations you get what you pay for but I havent had a problem with UVs.