UV or Skylight?

[RobinP]

Which is the best filter for general use? I have three lenses so don't want to buy six filters, just one for each that I can leave on most of the time, would also add protection to the object lens.

[glsammy]

Personally I'd say UV. Skylights can produce a warmer image, which may not always be what you want. A UV should have no effect on the colour of the image, just help to remove UV haze.
I have UV filters on all my lens, mainly for the protection aspect than anything else. They've already proved their worth as I found a large chip out of the centre of the one on my 150mm lens. I happily replaced the filter, much cheaper than having the lens repaired.
By the way, I don't buy expensive ones. I've done my own tests with a supposed top quality one and a cheaper one and couldn't see any difference. Perhaps I've been lucky, but until I'm not I'll keep on with my cheaper ones!

[MeadsMan]

If I may suggest,Canon and probably other manufacturers do what they call a protection filter,wich offers no filtering at all,I got mine from the well known internet auction,and if I remember the difference in cost was only a few pounds,I have only used this on my Canon " L " lens,otherwise like Gslammy,I use the readily available off the shelf ones.

[big bill]

Like Graham I use the the UV filters for protection of the lens glass more than anything else

[Digifrog]

Ditto. For lens protection I have the relatively inexpensive green case Hoya UV filters on all my lenses.

[ron1863]

UV, mostly for protecting the glass. You should fit one to all your lenses, much cheaper to replace a filter than a lens.

[Chris Hammond]

Must admit I'm a bit surprised to hear reccomendations for the cheaper filters. I've always worked on the assumption that your 'glass' is only as good as your UV filter. Having said that I haven't carried out any comparisons.

I think the UV filter for my Bigma cost me over seventy quid. Still a lot cheaper than replacing a scratched lens.

Regards Chris

[Geoff F]

I think that using top grade correct filters to match the light conditions is more important with film photograph where you only have one chance to get it right. With digital lenses I find that Jessops own brand work well and are a bit cheaper.

[LoveT]

I keep UV filters on all my lenses 24/7.

Just one dumb question from me though: if you folks want to put, for example, a polarizing filter on, do you go to the trouble of taking the UV filter off first (which I do), or can you leave it on?

Hmmm.... that really was a dumb question wasn't it? I can hear the collective sharp intake of breath from here !!

Thea

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Chris Hammond

Must admit I'm a bit surprised to hear reccomendations for the cheaper filters. I've always worked on the assumption that your 'glass' is only as good as your UV filter. Having said that I haven't carried out any comparisons.

I think the UV filter for my Bigma cost me over seventy quid. Still a lot cheaper than replacing a scratched lens.

Regards Chris

I just do a few simple tests with everyone I get. I take a variety of shots with and without the filter in a mixture of challenging lighting conditions (such as almost into the sun) and then do a straight 100% comparison.
I've never seen any difference in my results. I always use the same supplier from the usual on-line auction site.
I've seen some results from tests Nikon did doing a comparison, all I can think is that they must have got hold of the worst UV's ever made! A bit of corporate scare tactics perhaps?

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by LoveT

I keep UV filters on all my lenses 24/7.

Just one dumb question from me though: if you folks want to put, for example, a polarizing filter on, do you go to the trouble of taking the UV filter off first (which I do), or can you leave it on?

Hmmm.... that really was a dumb question wasn't it? I can hear the collective sharp intake of breath from here !!

Thea

Not dumb at all. It's a good question. I do have a polarizing filter for my 10-20mm, but I must admit I've never used it. If I did I'm not sure I'd take the UV off with that lens..That's just my idleness!
I suppose the more glass you've got in the way the more chance you've got of it affecting the quality of the image, so no doubt it would be best if you did remove it first. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to using these filters..

[pressld2]

I have a Nikon 16-85mm lens and if I want to use a polarizing filter then I take the UV off first. The reason - if I don't then at the 16mm end of the zoom the rim of the polarizer will be visible in the corners of the frame. It looks like really bad vignetting.

Plus I think Graham's right that the more filters you stack the more you risk affecting image quality and possibly introducing flare.

I don't have a UV filter on my Sigma 150mm - I really must get one as a matter of priority. I'd be lost without that lens if anything happened to it.

Dave P.

[BillyPilgrim]

I suppose it depends on the type of lens you use.

I never use filters. But I do use telephoto lenses 99.9% of the time and the front element is always protected by a large lens hood.

I have used them in the past on smaller lenses but I always tended to get dust, smugdes and finger prints on them. I found cleaning the filter much more difficult than cleaning the front element of the lens so I ended up ditching the filters.

I just bought a Canon 17-40mm but I don't plan to buy a filter for it. I'd go as far as to say that the use of filters just for protection is a tad overdone. How many people have actually scratched the front element of their lens? Or failing that, the filter that is protecting it (except Graham of course) ?

[Chris Hammond]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I have a Nikon 16-85mm lens and if I want to use a polarizing filter then I take the UV off first. The reason - if I don't then at the 16mm end of the zoom the rim of the polarizer will be visible in the corners of the frame. It looks like really bad vignetting.

Plus I think Graham's right that the more filters you stack the more you risk affecting image quality and possibly introducing flare.

I don't have a UV filter on my Sigma 150mm - I really must get one as a matter of priority. I'd be lost without that lens if anything happened to it.

Dave P.

Aha, so that's the reason I've suffered heavy vignetting from my relatively new wide angle Sigma lens. It never occurred to me to take the UV filter off. You've gotta love the net! Cheers.

[denisg]

Originally Posted by Chris Hammond

Aha, so that's the reason I've suffered heavy vignetting from my relatively new wide angle Sigma lens. It never occurred to me to take the UV filter off. You've gotta love the net! Cheers.

Or, you could just buy a step-up ring and use a larger diameter filter..........

Personally, I never use them and in 50 odd years never had a scratched or damaged front element. If a manufacturer like Minolta, CaNikon etc spend lots of development time and money to get the quality, positioning and coating of the glass correct, who am I to put a cheap, softer (by hardness standards) piece of glass in front of it. It's yet another 2 surfaces to keep spotlessly clean too.

To each their own though

Denis.

[stonflo]

The subject of using UV filters has been discussed for a number of years on various forums etc . It would appear that some say that there is no effect by using a filter others say there may be. Others use the UV filter for protection of what might be an expensive lense. As always it comes down to personal preference and your own experience of either using a UV or not.
Me, I use UV filters on all my lenses and have never noticed any difference but thats my opinion.

[Oy]

Firstly - several of my lenses don;t have a front filter thread anyway.

Secondly - a good lens hood and insurance protect my lenses just fine

[glsammy]

Everyone has there own opinion, nothing wrong with that. All I know is that I DID damage the UV filter on my 150mm. Not sure how it happened,all I know is there's a good nick right out of the centre of it. Perhaps I'm just clumsy, in fact I know I am!
Having seen the damage for myself, there's no chance I'd ever go out without a filter fitted.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by BillyPilgrim

How many people have actually scratched the front element of their lens? Or failing that, the filter that is protecting it (except Graham of course) ?

I have. The 18-70mm kit lens that came with my D70 has a small scratch on it. I've never noticed it having any affect on any pictures taken with that lens but it's definitely there and lens cleaners won't shift it. No idea how it happened.

Can I ask if any of those who rely on insurance have ever made a claim, either for a replacement or repair due to a scratched or chipped lens element? My own (jaded and cynical) view of insurance is that you're only covered until you need to claim, at which point out comes the small print.

Dave P.

[dunlin]

I have a 24-105 lens on my dslr. I use a uv filter thats always on, as well as a lens hood and lens cap.
I also have insurance and just for good measure when im out walking i hang it around my neck and shield it from knocks in my coat.
Do you think its bordering on the obsessive ??

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Can I ask if any of those who rely on insurance have ever made a claim, either for a replacement or repair due to a scratched or chipped lens element? My own (jaded and cynical) view of insurance is that you're only covered until you need to claim, at which point out comes the small print.

Dave P.

You're probably correct. Although I would like to think that the specialised photography insurance companies would be more reasonable. I hope so as I pay £8 a month to insure my Canon 500mm with one of them.

Front elements aren't necessarily expensive though. When I bought my Canon 300mm from Ebay I noticed a very small mark on the front glass and enquired about the cost of replacement. For the element alone (to fit yourself) it was only £17 plus VAT. I think it was about £80 to have them fit it. I didn't bother doing either in the end because the mark doesn't affect results at all.

I think the front element of this lens is just clear glass though. Not sure if this is the same for smaller, wider angle lenses so they would probably cost more.

[LoveT]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Can I ask if any of those who rely on insurance have ever made a claim, either for a replacement or repair due to a scratched or chipped lens element? My own (jaded and cynical) view of insurance is that you're only covered until you need to claim, at which point out comes the small print.

Dave P.

Right with you on that one Dave, whether it's lenses or bathroom floors (not going there ), I have found through personal experience and from others that an insurer's sole purpose in life seems to be to tell you that, despite paying your insurance premiums, they're not going to help you .

On the subject of UV filters, I have a Sigma one attached to my Sigmonster, and I have noticed on occasion (when shooting birds against the sky for example) I can see vague concentric lines on my images. Most of the time I don't see them, but now and again you can see them in the sky part of the image. Strange phenomenon...

Thea

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by LoveT

Right with you on that one Dave, whether it's lenses or bathroom floors (not going there ), I have found through personal experience and from others that an insurer's sole purpose in life seems to be to tell you that, despite paying your insurance premiums, they're not going to help you .



Thea

I've found my company quite the opposite. My equipment is covered on my household contents policy, with the whole camera and other items covered up to £5000. I've had two claims in the past three years, one for our Canon binoculars and one for a compact camera. Both claims were dealt with quickly and to our satisfaction.