If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
UV - or not UV?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|