In what circumstances should I use a UV filter?
- Thread starter KSeet
- Start date
- Status
Hi KSeet,
Generally, it's use for lens protection to filter dust and other objects that might damage your lens.. But, I'm more comfortable using lens cap as a protection.
Generally, it's use for lens protection to filter dust and other objects that might damage your lens.. But, I'm more comfortable using lens cap as a protection.
Sgt. Pepper said:Hi KSeet,
Generally, it's use for lens protection to filter dust and other objects that might damage your lens.. But, I'm more comfortable using lens cap as a protection.
so it doesn't really serve much purposes ah? hee..
The filter absorbs the ultraviolet rays which often makes outdoor photographs hazy and indistinct. Heh, most importanly, it also serves as a permanent lens protector.
togu said:The filter absorbs the ultraviolet rays which often makes outdoor photographs hazy and indistinct. Heh, most importanly, it also serves as a permanent lens protector.
Hmm okie...is there any samples that I can see the difference please? Thanks!
One more thing, will it affect the quality of photographs? sharpness or something? Or makes it blurrer?
KSeet said:
Most folks use it as a protector.
Normally it does not affect the picture quality, and it's also a lot easier and safer to clean then the lens front element, esp curved elements.
A poor quality UV filter can affect the picture quality; esp an uncoated one. When there is a light source in the picture, eg candle flame, you may get internal reflections from the filter, resulting in a bright flame shaped highlight diagonally opposite your light source - ie, if the flame is at the bottom left, a mysterious flame will appear on the upper right side. i got lots of it when i used a $10 uncoated hoya on a 50/1.4. i once took one picture with a lit building against a night sky, building on the right. An entire 'building' appeared on the left side.
All UV filters will have some degree of internal reflection; BW MRCs are the best (least reflection), followed by Hoya HMC. i've not tried other brands. You can confirm this by looking at the reflection of the ceiling lights off the filter in any camera shop. Don't waste money on uncoated ones.
Oh yes; take off the filter when there are point light sources in the picture.
how true is this nowadays? i read somewhere that modern lenses mostly have UV coatings already, is that true?togu said:The filter absorbs the ultraviolet rays which often makes outdoor photographs hazy and indistinct. Heh, most importanly, it also serves as a permanent lens protector.
ST1100 said:
Thanks for the info! I already bought my UV filter without checking, now I have to go home and see if mine is uncoated. Its a $6 Hoya UV. So I should go test it by photographing some bright sources to detect reflections? Thanks!
Zerstorer said:
oh that's good to know
. like spectacless like that, see too many reflections if not multicoated also sian...oeyvind said:
Hmm..very informative! THanks!
Hee..well, guess its main purpose is to make it look more professional and to protect my main lens then.
togu said:The filter absorbs the ultraviolet rays which often makes outdoor photographs hazy and indistinct. Heh, most importanly, it also serves as a permanent lens protector.
I'm not too sure or convinced by this. That's wjhat the brochures say, but sometimes I'm challenged to tell the big diff in their pictures with and without UV filters used.
I think most would consider UV filters as protection first and cutting of UV rays, well... almost none! For the purists, they would even recommend removing any kind of glass from the lens.
As for coated and multi-coated... another challenging one to tell the diff. But with the marketing hype, I suppose one feels at ease to get the more expensive one if possible. But how much better it functions is controversal.
Zerstorer said:
It's not tough to tell them apart.
Look at the reflection of a strong light, say, some lit flourescent tubes, the ceiling kind.
Uncoated filter gives a reflection that is bright and white in colour. Also a perfection reproduction.
The Hoya HMC gives a coloured reflection (yellow?) and the reflection is dim. The BW MRC gives a diff coloured reflection (maybe diff coating) and the refection is even dimmer. When compared side by side, the diff is very obvious.
$6? Might be uncoated.
As far as I know, Hoya doesn't make uncoated filters. Their cheapest filters are at least dual-coated(1|1), HMC are 6(3|3) and SHMC are 12(5+1|5+1). B+W MRC is supposedly 8(4|4) IIRC.ST1100 said:
Differences in the reflections are clearly obvious between bare glass and HMC but compare it to SHMC/MRC the difference in reflections are far less, moreover actual differences that manifest themselves on images are hardly noticeable. So far, I can't say for certain that I can see any difference in images from using a B+W MRC or a Hoya SHMC/HMC under decent shooting conditions. The only reason why I bought a MRC was to test claims that they have more resistant coatings compared to the Hoya SHMC version. So far, I can only say that they do feel and fit better as the brass rings do not stick, unlike aluminium ones.
As for contrast and flare resistance, the best thing is to always use a hood whenever possible, no MRC/SHMC is going to help if you are angled to a light source.
One thing to note about multicoated filters is that they tend to get dirty easily. Make sure you keep them clean and free from fingerprints. A fingerprint on your filter probably does more damage to your resolution and contrast than an easily cleaned single-coated filter. Also, finger/oil prints left long enough may actually eat into the coating and leave a permanent mark on it.
I find that Hoya HMC/Ultra/SHMC/Pro1 UV has a yellowish tint, whereas B+W MRC does not.
Try overlay the filters on a white piece of paper, you will see what I meant.
Try overlay the filters on a white piece of paper, you will see what I meant.
- Status
Similar threads
