UV Fi;lter 2 protect - vile slithery image though

rgdfilms

rgdfilms

Wet poodle
Hey guys, Sorry about the subject header. I don't know where I put my meds. Anyway, I recently did a shoot for a friend and decided to slip my uv protector filter off my cam and shoot. The images look so much better, richer detail and color, and this was with a good B+W filter. So, is it even worth it to get one ? I guess for anal protection. I've always been a firm belevier in the uv filter and have put it on every one of my cameras from day one but I guess if you had a good insurance plan to cover your camera in case the lens ever gets scratched you wouldn't need a filter

I'm blabbing

thoughts,

how many of you use one ?

how many of you ever had a problem where you didn't have one on and you accidently made a baby

whoops

wrong topic


peace

:lipsrseal
 
I've never shot without some kind of filter over the lens, just in case. Usually a polariser, but if it's a low light situation then definitely a UV just for protection.
 
If you prefer extra glare, and ghost images (fireflies...) above a lens scratch potential then use a filter. I never use one (appart from a polar if needed). I don't know anybody having scratched optics, and even then, the image quality reduction is far less than what a filter does. Today's large hoods and hard antireflective coatings on frontlenses make filters a wortless, expensive (for the "good" ones) accessory.
 
anal protection, huh, I don't think I remember any specifactions on that one with the UV filter. SOrry, I had to say it. :)
 
I rarely use a UV filter indoors, unless shooting something that has some potential for getting onto the lens (splashes, etc). Outdoors they can be handy, but I don't subscribe to the "put one on to protect yourself at all times" theory -- I don't understand buying a $6,000 HVX with a high-def Leica lens, and then putting a $29 Hoya filter in front of it. If you want a UV filter, and especially if you want it to be on at all times, you should get the very most expensive, very best UV filter you can possibly find -- a multicoated B+W or Heliopan or something like that. If it's going between your camera and the subject, it has to be of the highest optical purity possible -- and those don't come cheap.
 
I assume from the place this is posted that you are speaking about a filter on the front of a DVX100. Assuming the filter was clean and undamaged, there is no reason for their to be a noticeable difference with and without the filter.

Unless you shot a comparison of the same subject matter at the same time, (with and without the filter) is it possible that the conditions etc are making you think there is a difference when one didnt exist in reality- just a thought.

I agree with Barry that if you are going to use a filter, that it becomes the front element of your lens and is a bad place to save money, good coatings will minimize flare and ghosting and the filter will protect your lens front element from dirty hostile shooting enviornments.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics, Inc
Century Division
 
I keep a Tiffen 72mm Ultra Clear on my DVX. I prefer the clear to either a polarizer or a UV filter because I don't want the light significantly altered before it hits the lens.

It gets dusty where I am. Especially when I shoot on location and we move stuff around that hasn't been moved in six months in somebody's office. I've washed crud and fingerprints off that filter that I would *never* have wanted to scrape off my precious Leica lens with its sensitive coatings. The Clear seems to me to be easier to get decent quality then something that depends on a coating. After all, its just a flat piece of glass.
 
How about a UV or Clear in 4 x 5.50 ? Any disadvantage/advantage to using it as the first phase in a mattebox?
 
andy_starbuck said:
Interesting choice. Why did you go for a filter with an extra wide (86mm) front end? Also, I noticed that its currently out of stock.

This is the one I use:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=430776&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
Click to expand...

I'll use it with many different lenses (dvx, dvx+sgpro+lenses, nikon d70s+lenses),
some of them are wide angle, so i think it would be better and safer.

I have order 2 things from bhphotovideo. Both are out of stock after my purchase...

I'll have it tommorow. I will tell you my thoughts.
 
You never see a UV filter on a 35mm feature film shoot - and you know those lenses cost a lot more than a DVX.

The only time I use one is when I have the camera on a vehicle mount, or in a windy or dangerous situation.
 
j said:
he only time I use one is when I have the camera on a vehicle mount, or in a windy or dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

I usually like to shoot at dangerous situations :)
Better to break a UV than any lense.
 
But remember that if anything actually breaks the UV filter, it will probably break or severely damage the lens too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top