UV - or not UV?

I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)



Eric Stevens

For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't do much,
and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't use one. Lens caps
and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting your lens.

For those high altitude shots where the UV rays can actually impact your
pics, put one on.

Take Care,
dudley

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

for protection, either one will work. just don't get a cheap uncoated
filter.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)


For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't do much,
and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't use one. Lens caps
and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting your lens.

I'm with Dudley on this. A good lens hood never leaves the barrel of my
better lenses.

Also, there's no difference in the pros and cons of this matter between
digital or film; it's a lens related matter, so the body makes no diff.

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)


For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't do
much, and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't use one.
Lens caps and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting your lens.

I'm with Dudley on this. A good lens hood never leaves the barrel of my
better lenses.

Also, there's no difference in the pros and cons of this matter between
digital or film; it's a lens related matter, so the body makes no diff.

--
john mcwilliams

I've gone so far as to use the Canon telephoto lens adaptor for my A720 as a
lens hood. It both protects the lens and helps to eliminate flair. The
only time I take it off is if I'm using the flash.

Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't do
much, and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't use one.
Lens caps and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting your lens.

For those high altitude shots where the UV rays can actually impact
your pics, put one on.

Take Care,
dudley

Yes, I try and use a lens-hood instead of a "protective" filter.

All my shooting above 16,000 feet has been from inside a pressurised
aircraft, and I'm guessing that the aircraft windows will probably block
quite a lot of the UV. Don't know if that's true, though.

If I were shooting in an environment with water being splashed around, or
lots of dust being blown, perhaps I would consider a protective filter?

Cheers,
David

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:20:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)


For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't do much,
and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't use one. Lens caps
and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting your lens.

I'm with Dudley on this. A good lens hood never leaves the barrel of my
better lenses.

Also, there's no difference in the pros and cons of this matter between
digital or film; it's a lens related matter, so the body makes no diff.

First, the lens hood for my AF-S Nikkor 16-85mmmm 1:3.5-5.6G ED (ought
to be a VR in there somewhere) is lying in the long grass somewhere
along about half a mile of the flooded Waikato river (North Island,
New Zealand) and Nikon show no enthusiasm for providing me with
another.

Second, by all accounts film reacts to UV quite differently from
digital - and this is the crux of my question. I know where I am with
film, but is it correct that digital cameras are not bothered by UV
and hence don't need a UV filter? This is where the body of the camera
might very well make a difference.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:20:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who
have diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there
is
any point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.

I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front
element
of a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon
lenses and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.

Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be
necessary
and all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens
Protect' filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is
are Hoya UV filters.

Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs
Hoya, what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter
serves any purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt
conflicting advice I will receive from the members of the news
group? :-)


For what it's worth, here's my take on the UV filter debate:

Unless you are shooting above about 16,000 feet, UV filters don't
do much, and can even distort your colours a bit. Hence, don't
use
one. Lens caps and lens hoods do a much better job of protecting
your lens.

I'm with Dudley on this. A good lens hood never leaves the barrel
of
my better lenses.

Also, there's no difference in the pros and cons of this matter
between digital or film; it's a lens related matter, so the body
makes no diff.

First, the lens hood for my AF-S Nikkor 16-85mmmm 1:3.5-5.6G ED
(ought
to be a VR in there somewhere) is lying in the long grass somewhere
along about half a mile of the flooded Waikato river (North Island,
New Zealand) and Nikon show no enthusiasm for providing me with
another.

That would be an HB-39 I think, which B&H lists for $30US--don't know
if they ship to NZ though. Instead of trying to get it direct from
Nikon as a replacement part see if a dealer can order it for you.

Second, by all accounts film reacts to UV quite differently from
digital - and this is the crux of my question. I know where I am
with
film, but is it correct that digital cameras are not bothered by UV
and hence don't need a UV filter? This is where the body of the
camera
might very well make a difference.

You might find http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page
to be of interest. Note that the UV response of digital cameras is
typically 10-15 stops below the visible. Personally I've not noticed
any UV artifacts but they may be there and I may not be aware that I'm
looking at them.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Eric Stevens wrote:
but is it correct that digital cameras are not bothered by UV
and hence don't need a UV filter? This is where the body of the camera
might very well make a difference.

The Anti-Aliasing filter on virtually all digital
cameras will filter out more UV than any typical UV
filter does. There are certainly variations in the AA
filters, but they will all have that characteristic.

The Leica M8 is the only digital camera I can think of
that doesn't have an AA filter, so if you are planning
on buying one you definitely need to consider the extra
potential cost of supplying a UV filter for each
lense... ;-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

I've found that the same people who give absolute advice for or
against UV filters on lenses are the same kind of people who are also
polarized in other aspects as well: For example with exposure
metering. There is the school that sunny 16 is all you will ever need,
and then there's people who also shoot pictures indoors or during the
night (took me years to figure out some people REALLY only shoot
outdoors, in the daylight.)

Similarly, some people never ever take photos in sand/salt
spraying environments while others do nothing but. In order to give
exact, absolutely true advice, one should probably also say in what
kinds of situations the said absolute truth applies