User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Filters- UV vs Skylight

  1. #1
    Member marty123's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Filters- UV vs Skylight

    I am relatively new to photography and would like to hear some opinions on wether uv or skylight filters are best for keeping on a lens all the time for protection.

  2. #2
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,899
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No!

    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Filters- UV vs Skylight

    No

    Case closed - ignore all subsequent replies




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  4. #4
    http://steveaxford.smugmug.com/ Steve Axford's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Nov 2007
    Location
    About in the middle between Byron Bay, Ballina and Lismore
    Posts
    3,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    except this one

    No!

  5. #5
    I am older than I look. peterb666's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Oct 2009
    Location
    Tura Beach, NSW
    Posts
    3,597
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use to say 'yes' but now I say NO as they are not required for digital photography and can lead to undesirable things like increased flare.

    You don't need them for lens protection. Use a lens cap or lens hood instead and practice a little more care.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2010
    Location
    Tweed Heads
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've read all the replies to this thread as I'm also new to digital SLR's- I'm about to buy my first. Are you all saying that the use of a UV filter is not advisable with dSLRs? ( I used to always keep one on my ME Super unless I wanted another specialized one)

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You don't need a UV filter for use with digital cameras.

    Skylight filters and other colour-modifiers aren't necessary either.

    If you're interested in protecting your front element, use lens hoods when you're shooting, and lens caps when you're not.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    16 Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If your lens falls head on,the broken filter glass will do more damage,front elements are pretty tough,maybe use one if your doing a lot of beach/surf style work where spray and windblown dust/grit could be a problem.
    Kev.
    C+C and Edits Welcome,just tell me what you did.
    Canon 50D,EF-S17-85mm,EF100mm F2.8 Macro,MT-24EX Flash.
    Sigma 150-500mm f5.6-6.3 DG.
    Photoshop Elements 7


  9. #9
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,899
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gabby View Post
    .... Are you all saying that the use of a UV filter is not advisable with dSLRs? ( I used to always keep one on my ME Super unless I wanted another specialized one)
    Yes.

    It's generally not advisable to use a filter unless it's for an actual effect that you're after.
    In film days they used to help cut UV transmission through to the film as film was more susceptible to UV contamination.
    Skylight filters do have an actual effect, so if your preference is to capture the effect of a slightly more pink less contrasty image without the use of software then by all means use it.

    As protection, these kinds of filters don't really help protect your lens from impacts.
    They can help protect your lens from getting dirty by seaspray, dusty environments, etc but you still have to clean the filter if you don't want IQ loss.

    So there could be an argument put forward that a UV or skylight filter can help to protect the lens, but the point is moot. You can easily clean the lens as you can a filter.

    The problem arises when your filter does start to get dirty in a dusty or ocean environment, where unless you keep it spotlessly clean it can produce more artifacts than an equivalently dirty lens. The distance between the front of the lens and the filter is the issue, and the dirty filter is going to produce more degradation in the image due to the distance and extra surface along the optical path.

    Those folks that are too scared to clean their lenses should really take up another hobby. Lenses are hardy creatures and don't easily damage as some folks will lead you to believe.

    I find it's usually easier to clean a lens than a filter when the front most element gets dirty whilst shooting.

    of course there are those that totally disagree with these sentiments, and swear by the use of protective filters.
    But! I've seen more damage done to a lens by having a filter on the lens, than any proof(yet) that having a filter on will safeguard your lens from damage.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Filters- UV vs Skylight

    They do make great coasters


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,899
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, being glass they wipe off a lot easier than a standard cork type

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2010
    Location
    Tweed Heads
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you all for enlightening me-I'll keep in mind the coaster value and save myself the expense. Gail

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth Metro Area
    Posts
    201
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just saved me a couple of hundred dollars thank you

  14. #14
    Member steamy's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Apr 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    great news as i was about to go and whack $70 on the front of my new lens to protect it!!!!

    so what's the best method for cleaning your glass? couple of micro fibre cloths and lens cleaner
    to get those finger prints off that the 2 year old loves to add?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •