UV filters

[msommers]

With berseker mentioning about how good his manfrotto replica tripod was he got on ebay, I'm curious if UV filters are hit and miss as well or just always miss. Has anyone used the filters off of ebay? Is there much to the filter themselves that could be fucked up other than scratches? At 150 bucks for a Nikon 62mm polarize filter from TCS, I'm seriously tempted. Any thoughts?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Personally, I use high-quality filters (Heliopan, Rodenstock) on my lenses, if I use them at all. Sticking a cheap piece of glass in front of your very good SLR glass is going to degrade your image quality, at least to some extent. No-name Ebay filters are probably not multicoated, and will be much more prone to flaring. The only time I use an inexpensive filter is when I'm stacking linear polarizers for a specific effect.

Since your camera already has a very good IR filter right on the sensor, UV filters aren't very useful. (Film and Leica M8's are a different story.) I really only use mine in dirty/dangerous environments where my front lens element might be at risk.

Look into the Hoya filters if you want some (relatively) inexpensive options. A consumer lens doesn't need an uber-high-end filter, IMO, but getting at least a decent quality one is always a good idea.

As a bit of a side note - unless they're damaged or scratched up, filters don't really lose their value! The only type of filter that I've seen priced down is the linear polarizer. Apparently linear pol's affect the autofocus on digital SLR's somehow - I've never noticed that myself.

[msommers]

^^^Thanks dude, you always have so much ACTUAL useful information, it's fantastic. I looked at the Hoya filters, what's the difference between a circular polarizer and a polarizing filter? At 55 bucks, this is hella better than 150 bucks for the nikon one.

The lens cloth I have, I have found out the hard way, is a piece of crap. It ended up making super fine scratches on my filter. Looking at it you can't tell, and neither in the pictures but one day when I was blowing dust off of the good ol' turkey baster, I noticed it when the sun was shining in a certain way. Pretty pissed to say the least!

[clem24]

You seem to be mentioning 2 different filters in your OP but seem to be confusing it as if they were the same.

For everyday use, I would get at least a basic Hoya UV or Haze filter for protection, irregardless of whether you are taking it to a "dangerous situation". This filter you leave on. It's always better to scratch up a cheap filter than your expensive lens, and hey, shit happens - you just never know. I have taken very sharp pics even with a shitty-assed Hoya mounted on my shitty-assed Nikkor 18-70mm. Point is that the filter likely won't affect you that much. It's a different story if you have a $3K professional lens. Then you can start moving up to something like a B+W MRC UV.

A polarizer is something you use to remove reflections from shiny/reflective surfaces or to darken skies on sunny days. In the days of digital, you can get the same constrasty effect through software if you want to use it to darken the sky, but reflections can't be softwared out. And yes, linear polarizers mess up auto focusing. To use an LP, you need to prefocus a subject, slap on the filter, then take the pic. Otherwise, get a CP.

Personally, I found the Hoya to be just as good if not better than Nikon. Sure, the Nikon might be multicoated, but I think your chances of actually using a CP aren't that often to benefit from multicoating. Plus you also lose a few stops with any CP.

Regarding the fine scratches on your filter - there's absolutely no reason to be upset. If you say it doesn't affect your pics, then obviously the filter is doing its job. You're not going to notice anything, so relax.

Finally, if you're interested in a CP, I have a Nikon slim 67mm CP and a 62mm -> 67mm step up ring for sale. The step up ring will allow you to use it on your 62mm, and you can also stack filters without worrying about vignetting. $60 for both if you're interested. PM me.

[msommers]

Originally posted by clem24
You seem to be mentioning 2 different filters in your OP but seem to be confusing it as if they were the same.

For everyday use, I would get at least a basic Hoya UV or Haze filter for protection, irregardless of whether you are taking it to a "dangerous situation". This filter you leave on. It's always better to scratch up a cheap filter than your expensive lens, and hey, shit happens - you just never know. I have taken very sharp pics even with a shitty-assed Hoya mounted on my shitty-assed Nikkor 18-70mm. Point is that the filter likely won't affect you that much. It's a different story if you have a $3K professional lens. Then you can start moving up to something like a B+W MRC UV.

A polarizer is something you use to remove reflections from shiny/reflective surfaces or to darken skies on sunny days. In the days of digital, you can get the same constrasty effect through software if you want to use it to darken the sky, but reflections can't be softwared out. And yes, linear polarizers mess up auto focusing. To use an LP, you need to prefocus a subject, slap on the filter, then take the pic. Otherwise, get a CP.

Personally, I found the Hoya to be just as good if not better than Nikon. Sure, the Nikon might be multicoated, but I think your chances of actually using a CP aren't that often to benefit from multicoating. Plus you also lose a few stops with any CP.

Regarding the fine scratches on your filter - there's absolutely no reason to be upset. If you say it doesn't affect your pics, then obviously the filter is doing its job. You're not going to notice anything, so relax.

Thanks very much, that was awesome! I'm more of a perfectionist so just knowing that it has some fine scratches on it bugs me, but shelling out cash to fix it may be a different story! I checked out reviews on the Hoyas and a lot of them came out excellent, and for what I need, non-professional grade, Hoya sounds like the way to go.

I don't know much about photoshopping stuff, and personally for my benifit, I'd rather learn things w/o it for the time being and learn things the "old way".

As for a "protection" filter is there anything out there that doesn't give an effect to it that I can use instead of the UV filter all the time? I have a kenko on there, I found this is the old Hoya??

When you mention linear vs circular, could you explain why you would use one or the other, or do they do the same job but one is just a pain in the ass??!!! So polarizing filters and UV filters are different from one another?

[clem24]

LPs are relics of pre-auto focus and auto metering days. You need a CP. Final answer. Use either UV or Haze for protection filter. They do almost nothing to the image. They are the cheapest you can get, which is why ppl use it to protect lenses.

For easy effects, like darkening a sky, get Picasa2 from Google. It's free and is an awesome piece of software for lazy asses like me that need quick processing and resizing, that still looks good.

UV filters does what it advertises: blocks UV light. CPs do some shit with light splitting, angles and waves and other funny stuff waaaay beyond my comprehension, or stuff that I don't even care to know about, but the effects are obvious. Uses of CP filters are quite limited, but the results are often quite dramatic.

So yes, UV and CPs are very different. Putting a UV over a lens is like wearing normal UV coated glasses - looks the same. Putting on a CP is like putting on a pair of polarized Oakleys - they have a dark tint to them.

[msommers]

Originally posted by clem24
LPs are relics of pre-auto focus and auto metering days. You need a CP. Final answer. Use either UV or Haze for protection filter. They do almost nothing to the image. They are the cheapest you can get, which is why ppl use it to protect lenses.

For easy effects, like darkening a sky, get Picasa2 from Google. It's free and is an awesome piece of software for lazy asses like me that need quick processing and resizing, that still looks good.

UV filters does what it advertises: blocks UV light. CPs do some shit with light splitting, angles and waves and other funny stuff waaaay beyond my comprehension, or stuff that I don't even care to know about, but the effects are obvious. Uses of CP filters are quite limited, but the results are often quite dramatic.

So yes, UV and CPs are very different. Putting a UV over a lens is like wearing normal UV coated glasses - looks the same. Putting on a CP is like putting on a pair of polarized Oakleys - they have a dark tint to them.

Very cool and awesome explainations. Sounds like I have to put a Hoya 62mm CP on my christmast list:D

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Circular Polarizers (actually all polarizers) have the effect of blocking reflected light, or light from obtuse angles. It allows you to see through reflective glass, bit it's also adjustable, so by rotating the polarizer you can make that same glass completely opaque.

I primarily use a CP for darkening the sky. It gives a neat graduated darkening effect, similar to a Graduated Neutral Density filter, but with its own unique style. Here's one of my shots, actually using a linear polarizer. A CP will act much the same way. The effect on the sky is obvious - if I did not have the filter on, the sky would have been completely blown out.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g188/FinalGearPhoto/Contest%207/f2e4fb85.jpg
Not a great shot, but you get the idea.


As far as using a UV, Haze, or dedicated protective filter... well, that's really a personal preference thing. It's a debate that rages to this day, and there's really no clear winner. If I'm shooting in a controlled environment, like my studio, I shoot without a protective filter. If I'm shooting racing or on a windy day, I use a filter. I find that a good lens hood will provide just as much protection for your front element as a UV will, with the added benefit of acting as a shock absorber if you drop your camera lens-first!

So, really, it's entirely up to you. Many people don't realize that if their front element does get damaged, it's actually a very quick repair!

Addendum: If you can make it out to the photo meet on Friday, I'll have 55mm & 62mm, UV and CP/LP filters on hand for you to try out and see what they do.

[trendkill]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Circular Polarizers (actually all polarizers) have the effect of blocking reflected light, or light from obtuse angles. It allows you to see through reflective glass, bit it's also adjustable, so by rotating the polarizer you can make that same glass completely opaque.

I primarily use a CP for darkening the sky. It gives a neat graduated darkening effect, similar to a Graduated Neutral Density filter, but with its own unique style. Here's one of my shots, actually using a linear polarizer. A CP will act much the same way. The effect on the sky is obvious - if I did not have the filter on, the sky would have been completely blown out.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g188/FinalGearPhoto/Contest%207/f2e4fb85.jpg
Not a great shot, but you get the idea.


As far as using a UV, Haze, or dedicated protective filter... well, that's really a personal preference thing. It's a debate that rages to this day, and there's really no clear winner. If I'm shooting in a controlled environment, like my studio, I shoot without a protective filter. If I'm shooting racing or on a windy day, I use a filter. I find that a good lens hood will provide just as much protection for your front element as a UV will, with the added benefit of acting as a shock absorber if you drop your camera lens-first!

So, really, it's entirely up to you. Many people don't realize that if their front element does get damaged, it's actually a very quick repair!

Addendum: If you can make it out to the photo meet on Friday, I'll have 55mm & 62mm, UV and CP/LP filters on hand for you to try out and see what they do.


i have only used my CP once for a few outdoors pics and i have to say i think they are GREAT for outdoor shooting. they pick up colors so much better and foliage looks great. i recemend this for outdoors.

[msommers]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Addendum: If you can make it out to the photo meet on Friday, I'll have 55mm & 62mm, UV and CP/LP filters on hand for you to try out and see what they do.

Still plan on being there, and this would be awesome of you Thanks!:D

[clem24]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Addendum: If you can make it out to the photo meet on Friday, I'll have 55mm & 62mm, UV and CP/LP filters on hand for you to try out and see what they do.

You likely won't be able to try these out depending on what time you guys meet. Plus the sun is barely even out these days, so you won't see any benefit from trying these... Just a loss of a few stops for nothing. ;)

msommers in the event you do get to try it out and like it, PM me if you're interested in the Nikon 67mm CP posted above.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The sky polarization effects will be minimal in winter conditions, but the glass/water reflective effects should still function.

[lint]

by the time the meet happens, there won't be any light to try a polarizer on. better bring a mag light to create your own reflections.

[msommers]

with besrerker's pic and clem's explaination, I can totally see whats going on when compared to my UV filter I have on my lens all the time.

I have it on my christmas list Clem, so I'll let you know after christmas what's going:thumbsup:

[seer_claw]

I understand how CP's work but haven't had enough time to experiment lately. Not photos in the last week or so. But I do have a question about CP's.

When you rotate one you get a dark band and a light band. I'm guessing based on what I have read that where the image looks the darkest thru the viewfinder is the point at where the image should be taken due to the polarization being at a maximum at that point. Am I correct with that assumption? Or do you shoot where the image looks the lightest?

[clem24]

It all depends on what effects you're trying to achieve. If you look at BCS' pic above, the dark spot you're referring to is on the right side of the pic. Generally speaking, the "normal" usage is to darken the sky. So rotate the filter until the sky is uniformly dark. But this doesn't always correspond if say, you're trying to see through glass. You'll also have issues trying to darking the whole sky with a wide angle.

[clem24]

Here's the effects you can achieve with elimination of reflections. Both pics have the filter on, just rotated differently. Note the reflections shift between the side window and the front window. If no CP was installed, all windows likely would've reflected.

http://members.shaw.ca/clemsmodels/pics/mr2-cp1.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/clemsmodels/pics/mr2-cp2.jpg