UV filter: does price matter? at DVinfo.net

Slava Dobrovitski · January 19th, 2006, 02:06 AM

Hi Everybody,
could anyone please tell me, how important is the quality of the UV filter? At Beach Camera, they recommend a cheap $15 UV filter from Digital Concepts. On the other hand, at B&H they carry $150 UV filters. Should I aim for something more advanced/expensive, or the simplest one would be fine?
I would appreciate your input!

Tom Hardwick · January 19th, 2006, 03:05 AM

Now then, you've bought a Canon camera with a 12 x zoom lens (I'm guessing here). This lens most probably has 12 individual elements in the line-up, with two of them aspherical. All of these elements will be multi coated, and *the* most important element (from a coating point of view) is the front one.

It's the best lens Canon can give you at the price. If they thought that adding a $15 UV would improve the performance, they'd have included one. So remember, if you plan to add another element to the line-up of 12 you already have, make sure it's the very finest you can buy, with the best super multi-coating on offer.

I have two identical VX2000s, one fitted with an uncoated UV and the other with no filter. In contrasty light and in 20 seconds flat I can convince any one of you out there to unscrew the UV and skim it out over the lake, never to be seen again.

So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality. There are times of 'must', which include dusty or smoky atmospheres, children's inquisitive fingers and so on, but generally I'd say beware.

tom.

Dale Connelly · January 19th, 2006, 09:11 PM

I use a Tiffen filter. It seems to be a good value. I agree with the previous poster. When it counts, I take off the filter. For family shooting, etc, leave it on.

Nick Weeks · January 19th, 2006, 10:25 PM

I also agree, sure a UV filter protects the lens, but if you're going for quality, don't use filters. I also noticed a difference on my VX2100... the UV filter looked aweful compared to nothing (but I ony paid like $20 for it)

Emre Safak · January 20th, 2006, 03:54 PM

I use a multi-coated Hoya or B+W and always leave it on. If you have a cheapie, do take it off!

Tom Hardwick · January 21st, 2006, 07:54 AM

Most certainly take any UV filters off if you use tele or wide-angle converters, for a variety of reasons.

Laurence Kingston · January 21st, 2006, 10:06 PM

Why shouldn't I use a UV filter with a wide angle lens?

Tom Hardwick · January 22nd, 2006, 02:44 AM

Because you're introducing two extra unnecessary glass surfaces into the lens line-up. Say you have a 0.5x converter on your Canon. You'll now have a focal length of something like 2 mm, and the dof will be phenominal, often (on closeups) including the surface of the front element itself.

Keeping the unavoidable imperfections of dust and so on off your images will be very difficult indeed.

Next reason is that wherever you put the filter (on the zoom or on the converter) you're heading towards vignetting. You may not see this in the v'finder, but the whole frame may be compromised.

tom.

Adam Keen · January 22nd, 2006, 08:26 AM

Here's an article about filters causing lens flare.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml

Slava Dobrovitski · January 22nd, 2006, 03:44 PM

Thanks to everyone for the information! The issue looks really complicated now, much more complicated than my initial question :).

Dale Connelly · January 22nd, 2006, 09:37 PM

Also, by adding an additional reflective surface, you are rejecting additional light.

Tom Hardwick · January 23rd, 2006, 02:14 AM

Well worth reading Mike Johnston's site on 'protective UV filters' as posted by Adam (above). I've been saying this for years, and I could've written every word Mike writes. A man after my own heart.

tom.

Prech Marton · April 12th, 2007, 02:13 AM

before i buy a 58mm hama or soligor, etc. UV filter i ask:
can i use the original sunshade with filter?

Or i need to remove it? :(

January 19th, 2006, 02:06 AM	#1
Slava Dobrovitski New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	UV filter: does price matter? Hi Everybody, could anyone please tell me, how important is the quality of the UV filter? At Beach Camera, they recommend a cheap $15 UV filter from Digital Concepts. On the other hand, at B&H they carry $150 UV filters. Should I aim for something more advanced/expensive, or the simplest one would be fine? I would appreciate your input!

April 12th, 2007, 02:13 AM	#13
Prech Marton Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: hungary Posts: 462	before i buy a 58mm hama or soligor, etc. UV filter i ask: can i use the original sunshade with filter? Or i need to remove it? :( __________________ Relaxing clips with waterfalls and music, 3D photos, 3D videos: www.3d-video.hu

January 19th, 2006, 03:05 AM	#2
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Now then, you've bought a Canon camera with a 12 x zoom lens (I'm guessing here). This lens most probably has 12 individual elements in the line-up, with two of them aspherical. All of these elements will be multi coated, and the most important element (from a coating point of view) is the front one. It's the best lens Canon can give you at the price. If they thought that adding a $15 UV would improve the performance, they'd have included one. So remember, if you plan to add another element to the line-up of 12 you already have, make sure it's the very finest you can buy, with the best super multi-coating on offer. I have two identical VX2000s, one fitted with an uncoated UV and the other with no filter. In contrasty light and in 20 seconds flat I can convince any one of you out there to unscrew the UV and skim it out over the lake, never to be seen again. So remember this: filters only take away. So use filters when you must, and remove them if you want the best picture quality. There are times of 'must', which include dusty or smoky atmospheres, children's inquisitive fingers and so on, but generally I'd say beware. tom.

January 19th, 2006, 09:11 PM	#3
Dale Connelly New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Texarkana, Texas Posts: 24	I use a Tiffen filter. It seems to be a good value. I agree with the previous poster. When it counts, I take off the filter. For family shooting, etc, leave it on.

January 19th, 2006, 10:25 PM	#4
Nick Weeks Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Birmingham, AL USA Posts: 722	I also agree, sure a UV filter protects the lens, but if you're going for quality, don't use filters. I also noticed a difference on my VX2100... the UV filter looked aweful compared to nothing (but I ony paid like $20 for it)

January 20th, 2006, 03:54 PM	#5
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	I use a multi-coated Hoya or B+W and always leave it on. If you have a cheapie, do take it off!

January 21st, 2006, 07:54 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Most certainly take any UV filters off if you use tele or wide-angle converters, for a variety of reasons.

January 21st, 2006, 10:06 PM	#7
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Why shouldn't I use a UV filter with a wide angle lens?

January 22nd, 2006, 02:44 AM	#8
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Because you're introducing two extra unnecessary glass surfaces into the lens line-up. Say you have a 0.5x converter on your Canon. You'll now have a focal length of something like 2 mm, and the dof will be phenominal, often (on closeups) including the surface of the front element itself. Keeping the unavoidable imperfections of dust and so on off your images will be very difficult indeed. Next reason is that wherever you put the filter (on the zoom or on the converter) you're heading towards vignetting. You may not see this in the v'finder, but the whole frame may be compromised. tom.

January 22nd, 2006, 08:26 AM	#9
Adam Keen Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 49	Here's an article about filters causing lens flare. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml

January 22nd, 2006, 03:44 PM	#10
Slava Dobrovitski New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	Thanks to everyone for the information! The issue looks really complicated now, much more complicated than my initial question :).

January 22nd, 2006, 09:37 PM	#11
Dale Connelly New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Texarkana, Texas Posts: 24	Also, by adding an additional reflective surface, you are rejecting additional light.

January 23rd, 2006, 02:14 AM	#12
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Well worth reading Mike Johnston's site on 'protective UV filters' as posted by Adam (above). I've been saying this for years, and I could've written every word Mike writes. A man after my own heart. tom.