Red Bull Unrailistic | LIVE Broadcast

Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Thoughts on UV filter

profile picture
396222687862
Posts: 0 - Karma: 350
Is a UV filter needed for filming while skiing? Just wondering on peoples thoughts, i dont have one currently, but im looking into a lens hood and UV filter for 25 bucks, seems like a good deal. How neccisary is a filter?
Nov 11 2007 12:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Galin
Posts: 2342 - Karma: 3,940
most people just use one to protect the lens, thats what i got mine for. I just always leave it on. So if you dont already have something protecting your lens, definitely pick one up, its a must
Nov 11 2007 12:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
Yah either a lens hood or UV filter can save your camera lens from being broken, which is totally worth it, also if you get a good one, it will help with sun and keep its radiants down so it doesn't ruin your scene
Nov 11 2007 1:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Caveman.
Posts: 9067 - Karma: 330
.
Nov 11 2007 10:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
yep agreed

Nov 11 2007 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
396222687862
Posts: 0 - Karma: 350
i'm getting a wide angle witha 72mm front end thread on it, will i need the UV filter for the WA or not? I understand that i'd rather break a $100 replaceable lense then a $1,000 in-camera non replaceable lense.
Nov 14 2007 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Geoff.
Posts: 2378 - Karma: 12
if i were you I would get  72mm filters so i could use them on the wide angle and then a step up ring for when your not using the wide angle.
Nov 14 2007 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
thewavebb
Posts: 1082 - Karma: 20

I don't use UV filters on any of my lenses.  

My thoughts:  I use high end lenses and I have hard time putting another piece of lesser quality glass in front of my $1k+ high quality lens glass.  I use lens hoods for all my lenses and that has been enough.  The cost of 4-6 good UV filter ($500-$600) is more expensive then a low deductable insurance policy.

Anytime you put something in front of your lens that wasn't designed to be there, you run the risk of increased flairing and actually reducing the contrast in your photos. 

With wide angle lenses, be carefull on what you put in front of the element. It may cause some vignetting. If you want to still get a UV for it, make sure you get a really thin filters as this will help reduce the likelyhood of that happening.

Nov 14 2007 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
seider
Posts: 958 - Karma: 23

if the filter has front treads as well why dont you put it in between your camera and your w/a lens? that way you never have to take off your filter. but would this cause vineggiting (sp)?

Nov 20 2007 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Pippin
Posts: 4846 - Karma: 661
totally agree, but vignetting could give a cool effect in certain situations
Nov 20 2007 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
396222687862
Posts: 0 - Karma: 350
my thoughts on that are, why create anotehr barrier or hurt the image more then it needs. So far, i've seen a UV filter as a protective sheet of glass so the lens doesn't get damaged. I'm pretty sure if you damage the WA, it wont damage the internal lens. But who knows
Nov 21 2007 10:37AM
0 0
profile picture
leckett1
Posts: 6476 - Karma: 294
UV filters make an extremely insignificant effect on a shot. Thats why many use that specific filter as a protector; because it doesn't affect the picture very much. It would take a very trained eye to see which shots have a    UV filter and which ones don't.
Nov 21 2007 12:00PM
0 0
profile picture
396222687862
Posts: 0 - Karma: 350
oh, i know^. i will use my 43mm filter on my camera directly, but i wont add my WA ontop of that. its too much hardware, and with the WA on there, theres no way the internal lens can get damaged. if i had a 72mm filter for the WA i'm getting, i might use i. for now though, not gunna
Nov 21 2007 12:19PM
0 0
profile picture
tele_tom
Posts: 135 - Karma: 10
heck, I'd rather not crack my "$1k+" lens either!
invest in SOMETHING to put over you lens. you can get some super high quality, thin UV filters that will not effect the quality at all unless your shooting IMAX films. if you're still too much of a snoot for that, buy a polarizer or something which will give you pretty colors as well.
Dec 3 2007 5:08AM
0 0
profile picture
jwaveson
Posts: 343 - Karma: 10
You don't know to much about photography do you. UV's help get rid of the glare for one. It will protect that 1k lens, and if you are having a prob with other filter with it on then take it off. Where the hell are you buying your filters (500-$600). $25 is a decent price, then again I don't know the size of lens he has. From the sound of it, its an average size.


Get the filter, good investment. Better then replacing an entire lens.




Dec 3 2007 1:30PM
0 0
profile picture
NFaust
Posts: 17 - Karma: 20
What "WaveBB" was trying to explain is that a $25 UV filter is negating the affects of his $1k+ lens.  GOOD filters cost upwards of $100 (and yes, in the world of high-quality optics/glass, it really does make a difference) and to outfit all of his lenses, would easily cost $500+.  Take a look at some of the good filters on B&H - they ain't cheap.

That being said, for the 99% of us who use mid-quality gear, a basic UV filter is a wise investment.  Most importantly, it will protect your lens from scratches, dust and moisture.  But, as mentioned, if you're using high quality glass, get insurance or get a better filter.
Dec 3 2007 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
lindsay_neuf
Posts: 19 - Karma: 10
ahen to that.
they are awesome for protecting for sure.
i know you said you are only using it for skiing
but if you happened to use it for like biking or something where there is dirt, because you most likely will leave it on, they are magical.
Dec 4 2007 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
thewavebb
Posts: 1082 - Karma: 20
Are you a working professional?  I shoot for a living and shoot around 8-10k photos a week.  I shoot a lot of action sports and weddings. Both put a lot of demand on my gear.  What makes you an expert?

Back to the topic....I agree if he's shooting with basic gear, probably won't notice the difference.
I only use UV filters when i'm shooting around blowing sand since that it a good way to screw up a lens. 
Dec 4 2007 9:36AM
0 0
profile picture
jwaveson
Posts: 343 - Karma: 10
Most of my Filters I did buy at B&H, along with alot of my other gear and yes they are good quality filters. The most expensive one I own is a special effect filter that cost about $75. All of my UV's (and I have quite a few) cost no more than $35. To be honest out of most of the shops I have bought equipment from B&H has been the cheapest.
Dec 4 2007 10:46AM
0 0
profile picture
jwaveson
Posts: 343 - Karma: 10
To answer your question. Yes, I am a working professional. I own my own buisness, and I have a degree in photography in several different aspects. The only thing that makes a photographer carry the title "professional" rather than "serious amateur" is a buisness liscense. I shoot the same, weddings, sports, portraiture, events of all kinds. It doesn't matter how many shots you take at any given time it only takes one to get the point across and tell the story. I'm not saying that I'm an expert. To be honest I think that in that field there is always something to learn and if you are still learning then you can't be called an expert. HIghly knowledgable I think is a better term.
Dec 4 2007 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
horner
Posts: 2439 - Karma: 1,578
just get a clear protective filter.  It's just a clear piece of glass that is there to protect your lens.  All a uv filter does is filter out uv rays which can cause that blue haze you sometimes see on sunny days.  Anything you put in front of your lens can cause more flaring to occur.  UV filters don't cut down flare, the purpose of a UV is to reduce the blue haze you sometimes see on sunny days.  It can be seen even more when your by water.  If you're worried about your lens getting scratched, just buy a screw on clear glass filter. 


The Wavebb is right, anything you put in front of your lens increases that chance for flaring to occur.  There is no magic "anti flare" filter, but you can find more high end filters with anti reflective coating, but still, flaring will still be there.  The only way to completely reduce flaring is to block any direct light from hitting the lens depending on where you are in relation to the light.  If you are getting flare, just move your hand around in front of the lens until you block the light which is causing the flaring.

in short, just get a clear protective filter, that's all you need.
Dec 4 2007 1:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Itsbackfliptime
Posts: 18901 - Karma: 75
i use a UV filter cause they're like 8 bucks at best buy which is cheaper than fixing a scratched lens. I have a crappy camera though so its not like I'm losing any quality.
Dec 5 2007 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
LC.
Posts: 5952 - Karma: 2,423
I can only speak for still gear but it all transfers across to video. If you're getting a UV filter then pay for the highest quality you can. B+W and Heliopan are rated highly, as are Nikon NC clear filters (I use those on all my lenses except my 10-20 that needs a slim ring). Digital still cameras filter UV anyway so UV filters give no effect.

My gear is covered on home insurance but the extra peace of mind is a good enough reason for me. I had a friend wait 6 weeks for Canon to repair his lens once. And I've had days where I've had dirt or fingers on my filters; just take them off and carry on shooting 10 seconds later instead of trying to clean your stuff.

Hoyas get good writeups but are trickier to clean. Don't even bother with something that costs $25.
Dec 5 2007 3:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Lukey_1080
Posts: 618 - Karma: 679
not worth it for 25 bucks, i never use my hood or filter and my camera lens is fine.
Dec 5 2007 4:37PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)