UV Filter
- Thread starter REHov520
- Start date
kenackr
Well-known member
Any of the reputable online sellers will be able to offer a choice of good brands at reasonable prices. B&H, EVS, ABEL CINE, etc.. If you have a local dealer that stocks 72mm filters, that would be my first choice.
B+W (a Schneider company) is considered by many to be a topline manufacturer in the filter business and you should be able to get one of those for $50 or there abouts.
There are many other good filter companies with lower prices, but, only you can choose what you want to put in front of that wonderful Leica lens.
The lens is already coated with a UV absorbing coating so you could also go with a clear filter if you wanted to.
Have fun!
Ken
B+W (a Schneider company) is considered by many to be a topline manufacturer in the filter business and you should be able to get one of those for $50 or there abouts.
There are many other good filter companies with lower prices, but, only you can choose what you want to put in front of that wonderful Leica lens.
The lens is already coated with a UV absorbing coating so you could also go with a clear filter if you wanted to.
Have fun!
Ken
Bill Sullivan
Active member
Ken,
What about the DMX-LMC72? It's $39.95 at B&H.
Bill
What about the DMX-LMC72? It's $39.95 at B&H.
Bill
Why not a clear filter? Why UV? Why put any glass on there? Look after your lense. I jest.. I agree you need some lens protection but will you shoot with a UV filter on? DO you take it off after? Lens cap is good for protecting lens.
kenackr
Well-known member
Bill,
I honestly don't know anything about that filter so really couldn't comment.
I can only tell you that I decided to use B+W or Schneider and not worry about the extra cost even though it's sometimes hard to do.
In my particular case, since I do a lot of outside shooting in bright sun, I went with a B+W Kaesman rotating polarizer as the filter I keep on all the time and not a UV or clear. It's a little more money than a UV, but it really helps with glare, reflections, etc.
I also use a Hyson Films matte box that can hold 2 additional Schneider 4x4 filters. I really like the matte box, feel it is very useful, and would recommend it to anyone.
Call me crazy but I actually want to know if I'm using the DVX to it's best advantage and settings and not have to wonder if it was a less than stirling filter that caused a problem. That's just me.
Other people use other filters all the time and have good results. I just want to eliminate the guess work while I'm learning how to take good shots. That way, the only excuse for a bad shot is me, not the equipment.
Ken
I honestly don't know anything about that filter so really couldn't comment.
I can only tell you that I decided to use B+W or Schneider and not worry about the extra cost even though it's sometimes hard to do.
In my particular case, since I do a lot of outside shooting in bright sun, I went with a B+W Kaesman rotating polarizer as the filter I keep on all the time and not a UV or clear. It's a little more money than a UV, but it really helps with glare, reflections, etc.
I also use a Hyson Films matte box that can hold 2 additional Schneider 4x4 filters. I really like the matte box, feel it is very useful, and would recommend it to anyone.
Call me crazy but I actually want to know if I'm using the DVX to it's best advantage and settings and not have to wonder if it was a less than stirling filter that caused a problem. That's just me.
Other people use other filters all the time and have good results. I just want to eliminate the guess work while I'm learning how to take good shots. That way, the only excuse for a bad shot is me, not the equipment.
Ken
I've been photographing for about 20 years now and never ever used a UV-Filter on any lens. I simply protected the lenses myself by not touching them with my fingers or with a brush that had touched skin before and by making it clear that I'd kill anybody who would touch a lens. When not in use I put a cap on the lens.
I'm absolutely new to video - haven't even gotten my camera yet - but I can't imagine why the filter should be needed except for when there is sand or salt water flying around.
I'm absolutely new to video - haven't even gotten my camera yet - but I can't imagine why the filter should be needed except for when there is sand or salt water flying around.
Bill Sullivan
Active member
I've never used a filter either, but now I own this camera and I want to take care of it the best I can.
Okay, a dumb question: what's the difference between clear and glass filters?
Bill
Okay, a dumb question: what's the difference between clear and glass filters?
Bill
Once more: video sensors are not UV sensitive, thus no UV filtration is needed.
If you want to protect the lens* a clear protection filter is enough. These are now available as digital still cameras not need UV protection either. They should be a tad cheaper than UV filters.
This whole UV thing is a carryover from the film era.
If you already have a suitable UV filter there is no harm done using that.
*) I just got some grease on the lens from shooting s sizzling lamb chop too close...
If you want to protect the lens* a clear protection filter is enough. These are now available as digital still cameras not need UV protection either. They should be a tad cheaper than UV filters.
This whole UV thing is a carryover from the film era.
If you already have a suitable UV filter there is no harm done using that.
*) I just got some grease on the lens from shooting s sizzling lamb chop too close...
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one. I have a LOT of glass (a ton of Nikkors and my new 2/3" Fujinon 20:1), and NONE of them have a glass filter on them. The only time I ever use a filter is if I'm doing an effects shot (blood or guns).TheAnimal said:
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Well, that's a VERY good reason to use a filter. ANY 72mm filter will work. Sure, B+W are better, but there all about the same. A cheap Hoya oughta get you by just fine.REHov520 said:
I think there are two reasons not to generally use a filter to protect the lens:Rezfactor said:
1. If you paid a fortune for a good lens you don't want a cheap piece of glass in front of it, if you can avoid it.
2. You're easily making a habit of being (more) careless if you think that nothing can happen to your front lens.
andy_starbuck
Well-known member
Just one more opinion...
1. I can't tell the distortion, if any, from using a clear filter. Shooting the same scene with and without and looking at the result, I just can't see the difference.
2. A lot of video shoots involve a number of assistants and others who are not camera operators. And I've seen them do things like tap the lens with their finger and say "so this is the lens, huh?" (This actually happened last month). I don't have time or inclination on the set to be the "lens guard".
3. Its dusty here and humid here. If I cleaned the lens as often as I've cleaned the filter, the lens would probably be scratched up now. Also, I like the fact that when I clean the filter I can hold it up and look through it to see if its clean, rather than trying to look at light reflecting off the surface as with the camera lens.
4. I would much rather throw a filter in the trash and shoot with the naked lens while waiting for the next inexpensive filter to arrive, then to do without the camera for several weeks and pay a lot of money to have the lens replaced.
1. I can't tell the distortion, if any, from using a clear filter. Shooting the same scene with and without and looking at the result, I just can't see the difference.
2. A lot of video shoots involve a number of assistants and others who are not camera operators. And I've seen them do things like tap the lens with their finger and say "so this is the lens, huh?" (This actually happened last month). I don't have time or inclination on the set to be the "lens guard".
3. Its dusty here and humid here. If I cleaned the lens as often as I've cleaned the filter, the lens would probably be scratched up now. Also, I like the fact that when I clean the filter I can hold it up and look through it to see if its clean, rather than trying to look at light reflecting off the surface as with the camera lens.
4. I would much rather throw a filter in the trash and shoot with the naked lens while waiting for the next inexpensive filter to arrive, then to do without the camera for several weeks and pay a lot of money to have the lens replaced.
We're probably shooting under different conditions.
(This aura does not work with litte children.)
That's wise.
Neither do I. I probably simply made it a habit. So I do it without even noticing it. And I probably have an aura that says "better not touch the lens".andy_starbuck said:
(This aura does not work with litte children.)When it's dusty or when I'm on a boat and there's salt water spraying, I also want proctection. And not only for the front lens.andy_starbuck said:
andy_starbuck said:
That's wise.
andy_starbuck
Well-known member
Yeah. We are probably shooting under different conditions.
I keep thinking ... "What if I make a "Don't Touch The Lens" sign and hang it from the camera." But then I imagine that guy poking it with is finger saying "Ya mean this one?" ;-)
Sure wish I knew where to order some of that aura.
I keep thinking ... "What if I make a "Don't Touch The Lens" sign and hang it from the camera." But then I imagine that guy poking it with is finger saying "Ya mean this one?" ;-)
Sure wish I knew where to order some of that aura.