UV Filter?

I was told to buy a good screw on UV filter for my pd170.

A friend told me it will only "HELP" the quality of your picture and "NEVER" hurt it. He also told me to get a good one to leave on at all times to protect the lense. Agree or disagree? I honestly dont know much about it.

Thanks

John

[Nick Reed]

Yes, get a UV filter and keep it on your lens at all times. It protects your lens from dirt, fingerprints and possible damage.

I must add...get a GOOD UV filter, and that means get a multi-coated one. The least that I would recommend is a Hoya HMC (IMHO) a best bang for the buck (<$20). The Hoya Super MC is a step up and of course, more expensive.

A non-coated filter can ruin an image with internal reflections, leading to loss of contrast. Your lens is multi-coated and your filter should be too.

If you want the best filter that money can buy, get a Heliopan MC. I think these are around $40 - 50.

[Pat Chaney]

Opinion has always been divided on the use of clear or UV filters for protection. Of course they do offer some protection and can be easily replaced if they are scratched or damaged, but purists will argue that however good the optical quality, they will degrade the image to some extent. Many consider that the use of a solid lens hood at all times provides adequate protection - and you should use one in any case.

If you regularly shoot in a sandstorm, near salt water, or allow your lenses to be subjected to greasy fingers then certainly fit one; otherwise fit one only if it makes you feel better. If you do then follow the advice of your friend and Nick above - that if you are going to fit a protective filter then get a good quality one. I've heard many cases (from the world of still photography) where people spend a small fortune on a good quality lens and then fit the cheapest UV filter they can get their hands on - and it really makes no sense at all.

[Greg Wolfinger]

i use a multi coated b+w uv filter (~$40) and you really can't see any image degradation. i would recommend always having one on because it will sure cost a lot if you scratch or break your pd170s glass.

[Gints Klimanis]

I think I picked up this link from this group :

Single versus Multi-coated Lenses
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/coatings.html

[Gints Klimanis]

Although the conclusion of this article applies to UV-blocking,
video doesn't seem to need this (so I've learned on this group).
So, your pick should be a color-neutral "UV" filter that transmits the most light.

Check out this detailed article, which shows that most of the
UV filters (including B+W) don't really filter UV :

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/

[Jeff Donald]

I never use UV filters, I'll risk scratching a lens before I risk losing a shot.

[Nick Reed]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I never use UV filters, I'll risk scratching a lens before I risk losing a shot. -->>>

I don't understand...how would you lose a shot by using a UV filter?

[Jeff Donald]

Extraneous glass in front of the lens can cause flair and other undesirable optical faults. Even the best filters can cause a softening of the image in some circumstances.

[Gints Klimanis]

Thanks, Jeff. I always wanted to hear from the non-UV camp.
Pretty gutsy, though. If one scratches the lens in the field,
shots are also lost.

Anyway, I think UV filters are a good idea if your lenses are
fixed to your camera, they're worth a lot, or people are depending on you to cover an event. If you don't carry
extra lenses, you're hosed. Much of my video/photo is outdoors with martial artists kicking up pebbles on the beach or bare ground. Ping, ka-ching. Sometimes, I have cover my eyes and
face.

I did buy a B+W multicoated for my new Nikon dSLR. Man, compared to my other UV filters, I sometimes do the double take on whether there is glass in there. When I bought my first
UV as part of a rip off package deal, I thought UV haze had to do with a haze on the filter. I also thought that it was important to filter UV. I could never get that thing clean that junky filter.
Get a good UV if you plan to get one at all.

[Rob Belics]

I agree with Jeff and I don't use a UV filter either. The only exception is if I know I'm doing something I know will get the lens "wapped" but I can't leave the lens cover on. Like when I was walking through rainforest in Hawaii snapping everything in sight.

For regular posed shots, things I might use with a tripod, I wouldn't even think of using one.

[Pat Chaney]

The key is to assess the risk of a lens being scratched or damaged. I'd say that with a solid lens hood fitted, damaging the front element of a lens is extremely unlikely in most shooting conditions. That has to be weighed against the increased risk of flare and reduced contrast.

[Tom Hardwick]

Please don't be afraid of fitting a good quality multi-coated UV filter to the front of your zoom lens. It's mechanical insurance protection at its purest, cheapest amd simplest Remember though that the filter is now the front element of your zoom, and as you'd never dream of buying a camcorder without a mult-coated front element, don't buy a filter that isn't the best you can afford.

The VX/PD has a 12 element zoom assembled in 9 groups. Two of these are aspherical elements, and in front of the whole shee-bang are two multi-coated plain glass filters. What? Well yes. The VAP OIS is just that; two plain parallel glass filters, one of which vibrates constantly when you've got Steadyshot turned on and you're moving the camera.

So, adding one more SMC filter in front of that lot is neither here or there. Do it.

tom.

Ok, So, Which is one of the BEST UV filters I can get for my brand new PD-170? I want to buy a good one. Brand and model please.

[Mike Rehmus]

Any B+W brand will do. Probably don't want to buy the ultra-thin model as it is just extra cost that will do you no good. If you can go down to B&H, they can outfit you with one on the spot.