Skylight or UV filter for Canon 350d?

When I purchased my 350d a few months ago, the dealer recommended that I
get a Skylight filter to protect the lens. Being new to SLR photography
I took the advice offered!

Since then I've read various articles about whether to keep a skylight
filter on the lens at all. For now I'm sticking with the idea of having
a filter in place most of the time for protection to the main lens.

The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.

Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!

Thanks

Andy

Andy Piper wrote:
When I purchased my 350d a few months ago, the dealer recommended
that I get a Skylight filter to protect the lens. Being new to SLR
photography I took the advice offered!

Since then I've read various articles about whether to keep a
skylight
filter on the lens at all. For now I'm sticking with the idea of
having a filter in place most of the time for protection to the main
lens.
The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got
chatting to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight
filters
don't work well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue
cast), and that I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection
instead.
Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and
not sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!


My advice: Look at your pictures and see if there is a significant
difference between with and without filter images. Then, if there is,
decide between them.

My view: The filter-as-protection is good, if you need to feel you are
protecting the lens. I don't. To me it is just two more surfaces
between the object and the sensor. Two more surfaces to clean. Others'
anecdotes about the filter 'saving the lens' are substantial evidence,
but - I think - just testimonials. Seems to me there isn't statistical
support that would make it a must. Of course if the decider has a
history of clumsy camera-handling, it might persuade. I have, but it
hasn't, and no filter would have been a worthwhile addition to any
lens I've dinged in the field. And there've been a few.

Now a lens _hood_, that's another matter. Anyone interested in an FD
85-300 with a slight wave in the hood? Doesn't show up on the image...

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things
that just don't yield to thinking-plain or fancy-Dude".
-J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson

Andy Piper wrote:
When I purchased my 350d a few months ago, the dealer recommended that I
get a Skylight filter to protect the lens. Being new to SLR photography
I took the advice offered!

Since then I've read various articles about whether to keep a skylight
filter on the lens at all. For now I'm sticking with the idea of having
a filter in place most of the time for protection to the main lens.

The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.

Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!

Thanks

Andy


Same thing happened to me when I bought my kit several months ago. All
I can say is, my UV filter sits in my bag now. I don't use it anymore,
not for any particular reason other than I don't see the need for it. I
do use my polarizer, frequently.
--
Slack

In article , Andy Piper
wrote:

The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.

How does a slightly reddish filter give a blue cast?

Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!

I'd say throw the thing away. Just another piece of glass to muck
things up. I've never believed in 'em and have never bounced a lens
into anything.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , Andy Piper
wrote:


The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.


How does a slightly reddish filter give a blue cast?


Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!


I'd say throw the thing away. Just another piece of glass to muck
things up. I've never believed in 'em and have never bounced a lens
into anything.

I wouldn't throw it away. Keep it in your bag for those times when you
are shooting around sticky fingered children who feel the need to reach
out and touch your lenses.

ALV

Andy Piper wrote:

When I purchased my 350d a few months ago, the dealer recommended that I
get a Skylight filter to protect the lens. Being new to SLR photography
I took the advice offered!

Since then I've read various articles about whether to keep a skylight
filter on the lens at all. For now I'm sticking with the idea of having
a filter in place most of the time for protection to the main lens.

The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.

Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!

A skylight filter *will* work on a DSLR, but it's not always appropriate
because it gives an orange tint. It corrects for bluish light sources,
or certain light sources used with certain types of film.

Skylight is good for what it's good for: 'Warming up' a scene. You might
confuse the auto white balance by using it, however. Your camera might
correct for it's effects, whether you want it to or not.

UV is neutral, skylight gives a slightly warmer picture (orange). Camera
white balance corrects this automatically on auto/custom but not for a
fixed white balance like tungsten or sunny.

Cheep filters give you flare and reflections. Good filters cost almost
as much as the kit lense. So, I see very little point in protecting it
with a filter. For more expensive lenses I prefer uv though.
--
harri

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:54:07 +0100, Andy Piper
wrote:

When I purchased my 350d a few months ago, the dealer recommended that I
get a Skylight filter to protect the lens. Being new to SLR photography
I took the advice offered!

Since then I've read various articles about whether to keep a skylight
filter on the lens at all. For now I'm sticking with the idea of having
a filter in place most of the time for protection to the main lens.

The other day I popped into a local independent dealer and got chatting
to the lad behind the desk. He told me that skylight filters don't work
well with digital SLRs (adding that they can give a blue cast), and that
I should use a UV filter as day-to-day protection instead.

Can anyone help me get to the bottom of this? I'm a bit confused and not
sure which dealer is giving accurate advice!

Thanks

Andy

IMO, they should simply offer coated clear glass nowadays.
Neither skylight nor UV rejection is needed and skylights
cost you about a half f-stop in light throughput.
Also, when dealing with high brightness point sources, filters, no
matter how well coated can cause unwanted reflections so remove the
filter when shooting under those circumstances.
-Rich

Thanks for all the advice - sounds like I should seriously consider
ditching the filters. I'm still interested in the difference between
skylight and UV though - no-one mentioned that skylight has a warm-up
effect when I was making my initial purchase, for example. What about UV?

--
Andy Piper - Farnborough, Hampshire (UK)
http://jumpgate.homelinux.net/

"Andy Piper" wrote in message
news
Thanks for all the advice - sounds like I should seriously consider
ditching the filters. I'm still interested in the difference between
skylight and UV though - no-one mentioned that skylight has a warm-up
effect when I was making my initial purchase, for example. What about UV?



Before you decide to ditch the filter, here's my story.

One day I was cleaning my lenses and I had a couple out on my desk. Well
being careless I happened to knock my kit lens off the table and it landed
squarely on the foot of the chair I was sitting front glass first. As might
be expected I heard the sound of shattering glass. Luckily it was the UV
Haze filter. Had I not had the filter on, I'm certain it would have been
the lens.

Now granted I was just plain careless and shouldn't have had the lens in a
place where it could get knocked over. Also granted it was just my kit
lens, however it could have been one of my good lenses. In any event I'm
convinced the filter saved my lens from serious damage.

I suppose its all a mater of where you are shooting and what your camera is
exposed to. I do a lot of out door shooting, hikes, sporting events, and
the like and I worry (maybe needlessly) about the elements damaging the
front element of my lenses. At the advice of three pros, who I know very
well, I have UV Haze filters on all my lenses. I haven't noticed any
degradation to the images. Maybe I'm not as demanding as some here but the
pics look fine to me.

Note, I'm not a professional photo nor would I ever claim to be so YMMV.

--

Rob