mc protector or uv filter


Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 19, 2006
441
0
16
NUS
#1
I am using a lens with a Hoya mc protector, what is the difference between this one and a uv filter? is it worth to change to uv filter? any improvements to image quality? thanks. :)
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#2
I am using a lens with a Hoya mc protector, what is the difference between this one and a uv filter? is it worth to change to uv filter? any improvements to image quality? thanks. :)
Well, a protector is just a piece of glass that, well, protects the front element of your lens, that's all. A UV filter, presumably, cuts down on UV rays, allowing for clearer pictures if you shoot far into the horizon.

Thus, by this logic, if you're using a short zoom, the MC protector is good enough. The UV filter may be of some benefit if you're going to mount it on a long zoom to shoot distant mountains, etc.
 

Feb 19, 2006
441
0
16
NUS
#3
thanks a lot, I am using a Sigma 18-50dc on a 350D body, guess no need to switch to uv filters.
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
#5
IMO if a UV filter isn't that much more, then you might as well get it since UV light isn't desirable in any form of photography.
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#7
For information, digital sensor on camera digital is affected badly by InfraRed light than UltraViolet light. Film in the other hand, affected badly by UltraViolet light than InfraRed light.

Regards,
Arto.
 

posez

New Member
Mar 23, 2007
283
0
0
#8
I use a B+W F-pro UV filter

Actually, it really is no difference from a good quality protector unless you go to very high altitude where the amount of UV causes a bluish tinge in most things. I just bought it because it is a good quality filter that will not cause much (if any) image degradation.
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
#9
For information, digital sensor on camera digital is affected badly by InfraRed light than UltraViolet light. Film in the other hand, affected badly by UltraViolet light than InfraRed light.

Regards,
Arto.
How is this relevant to this thread? o_O
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#10
I use a B+W F-pro UV filter

Actually, it really is no difference from a good quality protector unless you go to very high altitude where the amount of UV causes a bluish tinge in most things. I just bought it because it is a good quality filter that will not cause much (if any) image degradation.
B+W F-Pro UVs are the MRC Haze.
 

your18

New Member
Aug 10, 2006
179
0
0
38
@serangoon
#11
How is this relevant to this thread? o_O
The thing is, the info u given to TS is incorrect. Dun feel offended if any, coz we are learning everyday.

Back to the topic, stick to mc filter. TS should not waste money to buy another filter if the filter does not affect the image taken.
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
#12
The thing is, the info u given to TS is incorrect. Dun feel offended if any, coz we are learning everyday.

Back to the topic, stick to mc filter. TS should not waste money to buy another filter if the filter does not affect the image taken.
Er no.. IR affecting digital sensors more than UV certainly does not mean that UV doesn't affect digital sensors at all.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#13
Er no.. IR affecting digital sensors more than UV certainly does not mean that UV doesn't affect digital sensors at all.
so that would mean having a UV filter will give better quality than without anything? :dunno:
since UV will cut down UV ray entering your lens to your digital sensor, thus a clearer pic. :think:
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
16
Singapore
flickr.com
#14
so that would mean having a UV filter will give better quality than without anything? :dunno:
since UV will cut down UV ray entering your lens to your digital sensor, thus a clearer pic. :think:
Yes.. You probably won't notice it at all, but you definitely won't notice worse characteristics compared to a clear glass filter, so if that extra few dollars will let you know that good can only come out of it, why not? :)
 

Artosoft

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,710
0
0
Tanjong Katong
#15
How is this relevant to this thread? o_O
It mean MC filter or UV filter will give comparable result. You won't see much difference. As already mentioned, digital sensor won't be affected by UltraViolet light/ray.

If you long enough to stay in CS, you will remember some test done by CS to compare Nikon NC filter and B+W uv mrc filter, and some filter as well. The result Nikon NC (which is no UV filter) give the best result.

If you have any info where said digital sensor is affected by UltraViolet light/ray, please do post.

Regards,
Arto.
 

Feb 19, 2006
441
0
16
NUS
#16
thanks for so much useful info, decided to stick to the protector, but will also get a CPL for landscape photos, :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom