Skylight vs UV Filters / Lens Protection? at DVinfo.net

Jack Robertson · August 24th, 2003, 09:38 AM

Hi all,

I understand both (Skylight and UV filters) are generally designed to cut out UV/Blue day light from your images. I have also read that UV filters are only cutting UV light (invisible Blue) but Skylight filters can cut a bit of the visible blue light. I guess my question is: Has anyone settled on either one as an all purpose protection for their XM2 lens?

More importantly, has anyone seen any effects in shooting with these filters indoors?... If not, I am guessing either one would make a good all round lens protector.

Regards,
Jack

Frank Granovski · August 24th, 2003, 12:06 PM

I guess you want either one or the other. A UV is usually what's recommended for indoors and out. If you're shooting mainly outdoors in good sunlight, I find a skylight slightly better. However, a good combination would be to get a UV and a polarizer.

Don Palomaki · August 25th, 2003, 03:46 AM

However, keep in mind that a filter is more glass, thus more chances for stray reflection, flare, etc, especially with low cost filters. And given the great depth of field, any dust on the filter will be more visible in the image.

Frank Granovski · August 25th, 2003, 04:11 AM

I consider Hoya and Cokin "cheaper filters." So far I have not had ghosting nor flaring with them, but I get both with my "expensive" Heliopan UV slim in the 43mm thread size. Strange, huh.

Jeff Donald · August 25th, 2003, 07:13 AM

Skylight filters have a slight magenta color cast. It may effect skin tones adversely, but the color can be corrected in your NLE.

Jack Robertson · August 27th, 2003, 01:27 AM

Thanx for all the replies...

I have done quite a bit of research now, and from what I can see; using filters is really a personal choice... some use them all the time whether it be for protection or the look, and some use them only when they need to.

I guess the best things is to use them in real life to see what looks good and what doesn't, and what is practical and not. On the side of protecting, I guess a UV filter is probably fine for all situations as some of you indicate.

Cheers,
Jack

Adrian Douglas · October 18th, 2003, 08:47 AM

This article over at Photo.net is quite interesting and may shed some light on the choice of UV filters for your camera.

Jeff Price · October 18th, 2003, 11:45 AM

To add a few more points -

It all depends on what you are using the filters for. If you truly want UV blocking then the photo.net article referenced is interesting. If you are looking for protection then it may not matter.

For those of you who think that care will keep you from needing to put a $20 piece of glass on an expensive lens - you must not shoot outdoors very much. Case in point, while videoing a small geyser feature at Yellowstone a freak gust of wind blew small droplets onto the filter. We were at a distance adequate under normal conditions to avoid contact with the water but the wind said otherwise. If this were normal water, no problem. However, the geyser water ruined the filter and would have ruined the lens had it not been protected.

If you are going to be videoing near the ocean you have to be aware that salt water can damage many lens coatings - be they camera or filter. For videoing near the ocean I use an uncoated filter if I can get away with it.

Bud Kuenzli · October 18th, 2003, 08:27 PM

I recently came back from a river trip with my gl2. I am obsessively careful and keep my gear in a big pelican case. Sometime mid trip I realized my camera had a spot on the filter and I tried to clean it but it was a nick on the filter. Sand in the wind...who knows. But it would have ruined my lens. That was good, cheap insurance. Just don't use cheap filters. If I used my camera indoors under well controlled conditions I would probably pass on the filter but if you use it outdoor at all...

Lloyd Coleman · October 20th, 2003, 04:32 PM

I noticed that the GL2 has a piece of protective glass in front of the lens that is not part of the actual lens itself. I often find problems using an additional filter because of the great depth of field (dust, lens flair, etc) that aren't as great without the filter because the built-in protective glass is set further back. If this glass is damages does anyone know how hard and expensive it is to replace?

August 24th, 2003, 09:38 AM	#1
Jack Robertson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 125	Skylight vs UV Filters / Lens Protection? Hi all, I understand both (Skylight and UV filters) are generally designed to cut out UV/Blue day light from your images. I have also read that UV filters are only cutting UV light (invisible Blue) but Skylight filters can cut a bit of the visible blue light. I guess my question is: Has anyone settled on either one as an all purpose protection for their XM2 lens? More importantly, has anyone seen any effects in shooting with these filters indoors?... If not, I am guessing either one would make a good all round lens protector. Regards, Jack

August 25th, 2003, 03:46 AM	#3
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	However, keep in mind that a filter is more glass, thus more chances for stray reflection, flare, etc, especially with low cost filters. And given the great depth of field, any dust on the filter will be more visible in the image. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

August 25th, 2003, 07:13 AM	#5
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Skylight filters have a slight magenta color cast. It may effect skin tones adversely, but the color can be corrected in your NLE. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 18th, 2003, 08:47 AM	#7
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	This article over at Photo.net is quite interesting and may shed some light on the choice of UV filters for your camera. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

October 18th, 2003, 11:45 AM	#8
Jeff Price Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chico, California Posts: 357	To add a few more points - It all depends on what you are using the filters for. If you truly want UV blocking then the photo.net article referenced is interesting. If you are looking for protection then it may not matter. For those of you who think that care will keep you from needing to put a $20 piece of glass on an expensive lens - you must not shoot outdoors very much. Case in point, while videoing a small geyser feature at Yellowstone a freak gust of wind blew small droplets onto the filter. We were at a distance adequate under normal conditions to avoid contact with the water but the wind said otherwise. If this were normal water, no problem. However, the geyser water ruined the filter and would have ruined the lens had it not been protected. If you are going to be videoing near the ocean you have to be aware that salt water can damage many lens coatings - be they camera or filter. For videoing near the ocean I use an uncoated filter if I can get away with it. __________________ Jeff Price Flickerflix Nature Videos flickerflix@yahoo.com

August 24th, 2003, 12:06 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I guess you want either one or the other. A UV is usually what's recommended for indoors and out. If you're shooting mainly outdoors in good sunlight, I find a skylight slightly better. However, a good combination would be to get a UV and a polarizer.

August 25th, 2003, 04:11 AM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I consider Hoya and Cokin "cheaper filters." So far I have not had ghosting nor flaring with them, but I get both with my "expensive" Heliopan UV slim in the 43mm thread size. Strange, huh.

August 27th, 2003, 01:27 AM	#6
Jack Robertson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 125	Thanx for all the replies... I have done quite a bit of research now, and from what I can see; using filters is really a personal choice... some use them all the time whether it be for protection or the look, and some use them only when they need to. I guess the best things is to use them in real life to see what looks good and what doesn't, and what is practical and not. On the side of protecting, I guess a UV filter is probably fine for all situations as some of you indicate. Cheers, Jack

October 18th, 2003, 08:27 PM	#9
Bud Kuenzli Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: North Pole, Alaska Posts: 197	cheap protection I recently came back from a river trip with my gl2. I am obsessively careful and keep my gear in a big pelican case. Sometime mid trip I realized my camera had a spot on the filter and I tried to clean it but it was a nick on the filter. Sand in the wind...who knows. But it would have ruined my lens. That was good, cheap insurance. Just don't use cheap filters. If I used my camera indoors under well controlled conditions I would probably pass on the filter but if you use it outdoor at all... __________________ on the Internet, when you get where you're going you still don't know where you are

October 20th, 2003, 04:32 PM	#10
Lloyd Coleman Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 256	I noticed that the GL2 has a piece of protective glass in front of the lens that is not part of the actual lens itself. I often find problems using an additional filter because of the great depth of field (dust, lens flair, etc) that aren't as great without the filter because the built-in protective glass is set further back. If this glass is damages does anyone know how hard and expensive it is to replace?