UV Filters
- Thread starter kit_fisto
- Start date
- Status
if you are using some kind of filter for your lens already then dun bother. Lens flare is a inherent lens design problem, all cams will have it, some more, some less. So its not a big deal, just watch where you are shooting.
You should search the Net more. There's tons of filter vs no filter debates.
My only advice is: if you decide to use, make sure you get the very best filter you can afford.
My only advice is: if you decide to use, make sure you get the very best filter you can afford.
kit_fisto said:
waileong said:
waileong, from what I have read so far, there are 2 school of thoughts on this matter. May I know how did you come to the deduction that one should get the best filters? And what are the filters that you recommend for UV type (for protection purposes)?
Canew said:waileong, from what I have read so far, there are 2 school of thoughts on this matter. May I know how did you come to the deduction that one should get the best filters? And what are the filters that you recommend for UV type (for protection purposes)?
Actaully, it all depends on budget and preference. UV is just for protection.
'Best' is just a matter of perception.
No $$$, buy Hoya. Got $$$, buy B+W. (just like buying cars, toyota and BMW)
The performance may degrade a little due to the gear, but it's the user behind who is the most important.
To reduce or eliminate lens flare use a lens hood. If you're one of those photographers who shun using a lens hood then buy a filter that has very good multi-coating like Hoya HMC/Pro or B+W MRC filters. Still a lens hood is the better option because the function of a lens hood is to reduce flare. The UV filter is to reduce Ultra Violet rays that makes your pictures look bluish.
Tumbleweed, do you mean that if one were to use the lens hood, then the brand of the filter will be less important? My thought is that if there is not much difference between the normal filters and the expensive ones, then it does not justify the purchase of the expensive filters.Tumbleweed said:
B+W got coating and no coating ones (cheaper), and price depends on diameter size, the UV 77mm MRC coating is about $100.icestrike said:
I belong to the 'No filters' camp!!
I believe that lens manufacturer has gone through numerous tests and evaluations and hence produce the pieces of glasses to perform at it's peak without any more additional glasses. So for me, I prefer not to have any 'protective' filters on my lens. The 'protection' job should go to the lens cap and lens hood.
No right or wrong, what's more important is you need to know why you want to have that piece of additional glass in front of your lens.
I believe that lens manufacturer has gone through numerous tests and evaluations and hence produce the pieces of glasses to perform at it's peak without any more additional glasses. So for me, I prefer not to have any 'protective' filters on my lens. The 'protection' job should go to the lens cap and lens hood.
No right or wrong, what's more important is you need to know why you want to have that piece of additional glass in front of your lens.
kit_fisto said:
I leave my filter on throughout. Never take them off.
But my question is only are expensive filters (eg. B+W) really make the difference as compared to the cheaper ones (eg. HOYA, HAKUBA, etc.)
kit_fisto said:
It depends.
I put my polarizer on when I need to shoot the skies or seas in the day.
If I need a closer range, I'll put on the close up filters.
Depending on situation, I'll take out the UV filters and switch filters accordingly.
so,care to name afew types+brands of filters that u guys use on different situations? or either on a usual standard shooting conditions??
Canew said:
As you've read some photographers don't use filters. It's a personal preference. Now in this age of digital manipulation you can use Photoshop or other imaging software to boost contrast and saturation.
It was early last year that I bought a Canon camcorder and used the freebie filter that the dealer gave to me. The filter had hardly any coating. I found the video colour on the LCD looked muted and had low contrast with the filter on compare to without. So I bought a Hoya multicoated filter. I could see the difference straightaway via the live videofeed on the LCD. There was better colour and contrast because of the multi-coating. It was like there was no filter at all. By the way, the camcorder does not come with a lens hood.
So the lesson of the day was that if you want to use a UV/Skylight filter on your camera, buy the best you can afford. No point putting a piece of cheap glass on the lens because that will be the weakest link to getting sharp and clear pictures.
There must be a difference to justify the price difference. The only thing is that it's not a linear correlation, ie pay 100% more does not mean it's 100% better. Perhaps it's at best 10% better, but this 10% in my view is enough.
In general, the difference between good and excellent is small, but it's always there. Just like the difference between the guy who wins the gold medal for 100m and the runner up can be as little as 0.05s, enough for a computerised stop clock to notice, but not enough for the ordinary person. Yet, how hard the winner must train just to better his opponent by 0.05 s!
Wai Leong
===
In general, the difference between good and excellent is small, but it's always there. Just like the difference between the guy who wins the gold medal for 100m and the runner up can be as little as 0.05s, enough for a computerised stop clock to notice, but not enough for the ordinary person. Yet, how hard the winner must train just to better his opponent by 0.05 s!
Wai Leong
===
Canew said:
- Status
