FS7: To UV or not UV

P

Publimix

Veteran
Filter that is. This discussion might be old but I couldn't find it here.

I have a nice new lens, the Sony 18-110.
And I sold my Nikkor 50-300, but without the UV filter. (The new owner wants to saw the lens in two (in the length), he won't need an UV filter).

The UV filter fits on the 18-110 .... It can protect the front glass and the coating.

But will this have a negative effect on the image?
 
Will you be shooting at high altitudes like in the mountains? UV would help with that and filter companies usually have demo images that show the difference. Otherwise any filter you put in front of the lens may have some detrimental effect depending on flatness and coatings. Why don't you test it for yourself using a lens resolution chart under various lighting conditions to see if there is a quantifiable difference? A couple of other things - what does the lens manufacturer charge to replace the front element? It might be worth the risk, but maybe not if there are no replacement options. If you choose to use the filter, make sure you keep a filter wrench with you. I recall a photographer bumping cameras with another at a protest, the filter was broken and she could not remove it, so that lens was out of service for the rest of her assignment.
 
I think almost anyone you talk to will have a story about the time(s) a UV or clear filter saved their lens. I have several such stories - the big one being a surprise splash during a concrete pour on a home construction show. So if you're in uncontrollable situations, I wouldn't go out without one.
Of course you may also pick up some additional reflections/flares from highlights and a very slight loss of sharpness - but in uncontrolled situations I'd rather go with the extra protection.
On the other hand, when I'm shooting in the studio or doing an interview and want everything pristine the filter will probably not live on the lens. (Make sure to keep the empty filter case in your kit!)
In terms of the 'filter wrench' -- not a bad idea to have one in the kit -- but remember that in the photog story it sounds like without the filter it might have been the front element that was destroyed -- so it saved the day there as well...
 
J Michael said:
Will you be shooting at high altitudes like in the mountains? UV would help with that and filter companies usually have demo images that show the difference. Otherwise any filter you put in front of the lens may have some detrimental effect depending on flatness and coatings. Why don't you test it for yourself using a lens resolution chart under various lighting conditions to see if there is a quantifiable difference? A couple of other things - what does the lens manufacturer charge to replace the front element? It might be worth the risk, but maybe not if there are no replacement options. If you choose to use the filter, make sure you keep a filter wrench with you. I recall a photographer bumping cameras with another at a protest, the filter was broken and she could not remove it, so that lens was out of service for the rest of her assignment.
Click to expand...

OnSet said:
I think almost anyone you talk to will have a story about the time(s) a UV or clear filter saved their lens. I have several such stories - the big one being a surprise splash during a concrete pour on a home construction show. So if you're in uncontrollable situations, I wouldn't go out without one.
Of course you may also pick up some additional reflections/flares from highlights and a very slight loss of sharpness - but in uncontrolled situations I'd rather go with the extra protection.
On the other hand, when I'm shooting in the studio or doing an interview and want everything pristine the filter will probably not live on the lens. (Make sure to keep the empty filter case in your kit!)
In terms of the 'filter wrench' -- not a bad idea to have one in the kit -- but remember that in the photog story it sounds like without the filter it might have been the front element that was destroyed -- so it saved the day there as well...
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if they can cheaply/easily replace the front element, if it gets F’d up on the shoot, it’s possibly completely out of commission THEN. I’ve had my butt saved by a front filter more than once. One time shooting for a large professional tool manufacturer. It sucked to trash a $300 Schneider, but it saved the front of a $30K HD W/A AND the shoot we were doing(happened in the first ~45-60 mins of an 8-10 hour shoot).
 
By all means if you are filming in an industrial setting with your $30k lens then cover it with something, maybe something more substantial than a thin piece of UV glass. But there is always that tradeoff. The exceptions seem to exist at the extremes, so what about normal use? I used to be in the filter camp.
 
A local rental house used to always send out UV or clear filters on their expensive lenses with the old B4 cameras , but noticed that people would take them off and just toss them in the case where they would get scratched. After replacing them over and over again they gave up realizing that the cost of a front element replacement was minor compared to all the filters they were buying especially for those big wide angle lenses. Of course for an owner op you'll hopefully take care of your filters so it makes sense to use them.
 
This one's come up many times over the life of DVXUser and I will offer the same response I always have. Always use best judgement to protect your lens, beyond that, I'd never use one. Too much opportunity for something funky to occur in your image.
 
Noel Evans said:
This one's come up many times over the life of DVXUser and I will offer the same response I always have. Always use best judgement to protect your lens, beyond that, I'd never use one. Too much opportunity for something funky to occur in your image.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Unless I need a grad or a pola or I'm filming welding/grinding, then no filters.
 
Maybe I haven't checked carefully enough (more than possible!) but I've never noticed any difference between a high quality (eg B&W) filter and no filter. I've checked on my Hasselblad still gear and on several video cams that I've owned, eg C300 II, FS 7, C500 II, etc. Not saying there is none, just that I haven't noticed it, even in situations where flare, stage lights, street lights, mixed lights, etc might be a problem, so for me it's a top quality clear or UV on every lens. YMMV and that's fine.
 
Never had a filter in front of my primes, except extra ND, but all of my zooms have them on by default. Maybe because by the very nature of the work generally being done with the zooms, it’s a lot less controlled than the work being done when I’m using primes. Now, do the filters come off, if need be? Yes. But I’d say 9/10 times you’re never going to notice the filter on there in the first place.
 
Run&Gun said:
Never had a filter in front of my primes, except extra ND, but all of my zooms have them on by default. Maybe because by the very nature of the work generally being done with the zooms, it’s a lot less controlled than the work being done when I’m using primes. Now, do the filters come off, if need be? Yes. But I’d say 9/10 times you’re never going to notice the filter on there in the first place.
Click to expand...

10/10 times. With barely anyone ever, ever noticing any differences (especially if you use a high-quality UV or clear filter) and online compression in general, it would be very foolish not to have a filter over an expensive lens.

Hollywood has stacked 2-3-4 filters in front of their $50K lenses on their 2K-ish resolution cameras for a decade and no one blinked.

A UV filter on your modern 4K-6K-8K camera in front of a photography lens will be OKAY.
 
Pretty much the only time one will need to come off for me is if it's gotten dirty and I'm shooting into something bright and stopped down for some purposeful flare, like the sun for scenics or the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top