Just got the EX1R, probably need a protective filter on the lens, no(?) Tiffen White Water glass or Tiffen UV protector - I take it you can leave the white water glass filter on all the time but the UV only when shooting outdoors?

Of the two which (if any) would you recommend for a lens protection?

Danke

I'd stick with the UV, because that covers all the bases for a protective filter.

Its clear, so no colour bias. Optically flat, so it wont distort, no neutral density so no light loss and its got UV protection so it cuts the haze outside.

It does not matter if its a screw in or mattebox version - so long as it cops the greasy fingerprints from kids, hands of shonky businessmen, texta pens from sportstars, rain and mud from the sky and makes sure the irreplaceable front element of the lens is safe.

Ben

G'day Ben,

Good advice there :)

Thanks much for the thoughts - so the UV lens should be taken off while shooting indoors?

No, leave it on all the time. Optically it won't degrade your movies to any extent that is worth worrying about.

OK, I beg to differ, and any camera that uses such tiny chips (and hence employs very short focal lengths) should never have unnecessary filters added.

OK, if you're white-water rafting it's not a bad idea, but anything that reduces the efficiency of the lens hood (which a filter does) should be avoided. If Sony thought they could improve their lens by adding another element to the 15 already there, it would be in place.

Modern multi-coatings are really tough, and the Zeiss T* is up there as the best. You'd have to go out of your way to damage the coating by cleaning, so don't let that worry you.

A filter adds two more air-to-glass surfaces, and the chance of keeping these two extra surfaces spotless are (in the real world) zero.

Think you've got a clean UV in place? Select wide-angle and f/8 or so, point the camera at a light source and rotate the filter. After that you, like a lot of us here, will only fit it when it's absolutely necessary.

tom.

I have been shooting professionally since the early 70's, stills film and video.

I have always used a UV filter and a hood in front of any lens that accepts them. I believe most "pros" do. Indoor and outdoor.

It is true that some purists don't but I think you will find the majority do. It is just to easy to scratch a front element when shooting.

The trick is to keep it clean and replace once a year or so when it is damaged, I always carry spare UV filters.

As far as small chip cameras go, I always try to shoot at f4 or more open especially when wide. I never use the EX1 or EX3 more closed than f5.6 if at all possible.

I have been shooting professionally since the early 70's, stills film and video.

I have always used a UV filter and a hood in front of any lens that accepts them. I believe most "pros" do. Indoor and outdoor.

It is true that some purists don't but I think you will find the majority do. It is just to easy to scratch a front element when shooting.

The trick is to keep it clean and replace once a year or so when it is damaged, I always carry spare UV filters.

As far as small chip cameras go, I always try to shoot at f4 or more open especially when wide. I never use the EX1 or EX3 more open than f5.6 if at all possible.

Totally agree! f/4 is the sweet spot on the EX-3 and after f/8 the images starts to go soft! Defraction kicks in after f/11.

I have either a UV or T1 IR filter on my camera at ALL times. Saves an expensive repair bill! The number of filters I've taken off after a year of service that has had a scratch or chip ensures I never leave one off.

I too started my professional photography career in 1974 Olof. I've never damaged a front element yet, so maybe I've just been lucky.

I think you mean 'more closed than f/5.6'. Agreed, diffraction losses are all too apparent smaller than that, especially at wide-angle. But although you may shoot at f/4, the imperfections brought to light by my simple test (above) are still there, just a bit more out of focus.

Totally agree! f/4 is the sweet spot Defraction kicks in after f/11.

Indeed, f/4 is the sweet spot but that's only because that's where the vignetting evens out. Diffraction kicks in as soon as you stop down from max aperture, it doesn't wait till you reach a certain aperture.

Thanks for all the pro advice (pro and con)...seems like I should get a UV filter, just for protection if nothing else.

What do you shoot Kent - Ben Hur charriot races in the dust and the dirt? By all means filter your front element. Weddings on sunlit summer lawns? You simply don't need one.

You say, 'just for protection if nothing else', but it's never nothing else, it's always more flare. Filters add nothing, they only take away; Keppler on the SLR spoke such true words.

What do you shoot Kent - Ben Hur charriot races in the dust and the dirt? By all means filter your front element.

That's so funny!

Weddings on sunlit summer lawns? You simply don't need one.

Depends on the people at the wedding - some throw plates :)

I think if you're doing a lot of run gun type shooting then its absolutely essential! Nice weddings and studio work then it may not be necessary. But I'd rather deal with the flare than a £2000 lens replacement!

And as we've been seeing and hearing here on the group, a wedding shooter would be VERY well advised to keep that T1 filter on the camera given the number of black suits you'll be seeing.

I turned pro in 1982, and my mentor advised me to place a UV filter on the front at all times - and one that was multicoated, to avoid any further reflective issues.

Most of my career has been news, sport advertising and wedd'ns.... and ive found if you keep the blasted thing clean when shooting into the light, you don't get any dust fleck problems. A dust brush is stowed in the Portabrace 'glove'.

I have only ever had to replace one, a 77mm, on a Nikkor 18mm rectalinear after loaning it out to a *friend*, and yes it got scratched.

I did have to seriously clean the 4x4 UV filter a couple of days ago - while filming the local show, and a mob (herd?) of kids coming to camera, one little darling smeared chip grease on the $100 wafer of glass in front of the $10,000 fujinon lens.

Moral of the story; Its cheap insurance. Leave the thing on.

Ben

My mentor in the 70s also advised fitting a multi-coated UV and leaving it there, but he was dealing with huge gates, 2¼ square and 36 x 24 mm. 17 mm was considered a very wide-angle indeed.

Now I'm shooting at a focal length of 2.75 mm, something he would never have considered in his wildest dreams. Knowing the massive dof bestowed at such focal lengths would (I'm sure) have him changing his recommendation.

tom.

Generally, I keep a UV on all the time -- and because I'm using the T1 IR frequently, that's becoming a default "protector", too.

It's not just black suits at weddings that require the T1-R, it's everything that is black. Whether shooting drama or docos day or night, black is present virtually all the time -- necessitating, for me, the use of the filter just as often as black occurs.

I did shoot with an Ike-E for several years, and I don't remember using a "protector" filter. I didn't trash the lens, but I came close a few times.

If I didn't have the black issue with the EX1, I would go bareback in interiors where there is great contrast and I need the stops (the IR steals 3/4 stop).

Ideally, one piece of glass is best, but shooting conditions are rarely ideal.

Regarding optical performance, I have to agree with Tom as I have witnessed increased flare under certain conditions when using a filter in front of the EX1's lens. However, that said, I normally have an anti infra red filter fitted for both safety and optical reasons and exercise care in positioning my camera.

Geoff