Uv Filters

[teggypimp95]

I am not sure if those topic has been covered before, did a quick search and found nothing.


I am going on a cruise in a couple months, and I will be bringing my Nikon D40. I have a 18-135 nikkor lens on it as well. Would a Uv filter be a good idea? How much differnce do they really make? Or is it just good for lens protection?

Thanks for the help!

[Mitsu3000gt]

They are mostly just good for lens protection. Digital SLRs have a UV coating on the sensor already, and the filters were more popular in the film days. If you use them now, its mostly just for protection. Some people complain about a green tint to their pictures when using them as well. It still seems to be a huge topic of debate on whether they are beneficial or not. Many people just use them in environments where they are going to be splashed or whatever and they are going to be cleaning their lens every 2 minutes, they would rather be hard on the $50 filter rather than the front element on a $1500 lens.

I'd recommend a Nikon NC (neutral color) filter before I would buy any UV filter if you are just looking for lens protection. It is only glass, and has no "filtering" properties. Simply using the lens hood does most of the protecting anyways. Also if you're shooting into direct sunlight, sometimes you will need to remove the filter to avoid flare. For a cruise, I'd pobably want a polarizer more than anything if you are looking to buy a filter of some kind. I use NC filters on my expensive lenses and I've yet to have any flare issues, and I can't tell any difference in IQ between the filter and the naked lens.

[01RedDX]

.

[AccentAE86]

I use UV filters on all my lenses. I have to clean them very regularly, and as mentioned, I'd rather be hard on a filter than a lens element. I use it only for protection.

I shot two weddings with my new Tokina 11-16 without a filter. It only took two shoots to get a permanent scratch on the front element. argh!!!

If you use a high quality filter (I use Hoya Pro-1) then they will NOT add any more flare or degrade image quality AT ALL. It WILL flare if you have dust or streaks on your filter, but the same would also happen if you had dust or streaks on your front element too.

Cheapass filters just suck. They're not worth spending any money on.

[soupey]

i used to use UV filters on everything, more recently ive been taking them off, u'll notice when taking high aperture or photos in dark settings, that you'll get flare from extraneous light sources, i dont have an "expensive" filter to test the difference, but adding an extra medium in front of your lens will naturally (no exceptions) reduce the CSS function of the lens, meaning it will reduce the optical clarity REGARDLESS OF WHAT COATINGS ARE ON IT. (something i learnt in optometry school)

think about it this way, if you wear glasses, regardless of how expensive/high end they are, or even contact lenses, what you see will NEVER be as clear as someone with perfect vision without glasses, its a fixed property of any piece of plastic/glass put in front of an optic system. its just a question of whether or not you (or your camera) will be sensitive to the difference.

some AR coatings will reduce reflections, also reducing glare/flare, they may do that (and in doing so allow more light to enter the lens), but regardless of what kind of filter is in front, the glass and its coatings will reduce and scatter light getting to your sensor. whether or not u will notice this in your final photo is really is mostly subjective, in the end i always think that if i paid X amount for a lens, why degrade the image in any way by shoving a piece of glass in front designed to collect an extra layer of dust/moisture/fingerprints when i dont need to.

that said, i use my cheapie tiffen filters whenever its snowing/wet outside, or if i plan on walking around with my lens uncapped for an extended amount of time.... or on my tele since it comes with a hood which cuts out lots of the associated glare, but again at night if im using the tele for some reason, ill always take the UV off because ive never had good luck with it.

its a matter of opinion to an extent, paying extra for an extra coated blablabla filter will offer minimal benefits over a cheap one if you're planning to use it for protection only, IMO i would say a lens hood is far more valuable and defensive over any UV filter...but hey, if your anal about it, invest in both.

[teggypimp95]

Thanks for the help guys!

I already have a lens hood so maybe i will just stick with that if thats all i need.

I like the idea of the nikon nc filter just to protect the lens, but i would hate for it to reduce image quality.

[ExtraSlow]

Grab a circular polarizer. I use one in any outdoor, high light situation and I love the results.

[teggypimp95]

Is a polarizer filter only good for out doors? Once you have attached it to your lens, do you need to operate your camera any differntly?

Sorry for my total newb questions here. I know nothing when it comes to filters.

[ExtraSlow]

Polarizers don't do much indoors, so they aren't necessary.
If you use any kind of SLR, you will be able to see what the polarizer is doing as you compose the shot.
I'm sure there is some kind of online tutorial for polarizers. Google is your friend.

Pro Tip: Don't wear polarized sunglasses while shooting with a polarizer on your camera.

[teggypimp95]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Polarizers don't do much indoors, so they aren't necessary.
If you use any kind of SLR, you will be able to see what the polarizer is doing as you compose the shot.
I'm sure there is some kind of online tutorial for polarizers. Google is your friend.

Pro Tip: Don't wear polarized sunglasses while shooting with a polarizer on your camera.

Haha alright thanks for the tip! Ill do some googling and see what I can find.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
Thanks for the help guys!

I already have a lens hood so maybe i will just stick with that if thats all i need.

I like the idea of the nikon nc filter just to protect the lens, but i would hate for it to reduce image quality.

I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you are able to tell a difference in image quality between a naked lens and one with a Nikon NC filter on it. Nikon even recommends you use them in the lens manuals. I've done tests with my 70-300Vr, 70-200VR, and 300/4, and regardless of aperture, I can't tell any difference in image quality with or without the filter at 100% or 200% magnification on my computer monitor. I certainly agree that every time you put something infront of the lens you are technically reducing IQ, but if it isn't noticable at 100% or 200% (or even half that, for that matter), who cares? It certainly won't be visible in a print. EDIT: Make sure you buy a good filter though, the $40 Hoya filters aren't the same as a Nikon NC. You can notice a difference in IQ when you put a shitty filter on the lens.

The lens hood is going to protect it from bumps, a filter will protect it from things like seawater spray on your cruise. Salt blows in the wind and has a tendency to build up on the lens element which is one reason why I use a NC filter.

Originally posted by teggypimp95
Is a polarizer filter only good for out doors? Once you have attached it to your lens, do you need to operate your camera any differntly?

Sorry for my total newb questions here. I know nothing when it comes to filters.

You can use a polarizer wherever you want, but its primary use is to remove reflections. Some people use them indoors to minimize the reflection of a flash when taking a portrait of someone wearing glasses, but there are better ways to achieve that. You can also use it to cut light so you can get slower shutter speeds in broad daylight (its going to cut a couple stops of light). Polarizers are going to increase contrast a bit as well. It's what you use to "see through" shallow water, or to get a really deep blue sky, or really green tropical water look, just for example. It will take the reflections off water, or, say, a black car.

One caution when using it on wider angle lenses (like your 18mm) is that when you are 90 degrees to the sun, polarization is the strongest and you can get some really deep, uneven blue skies. Its really not that big of a deal though.

You don't need to operate your camera any differently, however you won't be getting as much light because the polarizer is going to cut some out. You will need to rotate the polarizer though (not in the threads, it will have its own mechanism) to choose your desired level of polarization. This can be more difficult if the lens hood is on. That is also why they are especially annoying on some of the really cheap lenses whose front elements rotate when you focus.

[teggypimp95]

Thats some great info thanks Mistu. I agree that the Nikon Nc is probably the best option at the moment. I always find on trips i am cleaning my lens to much and that drives me nuts.

How much can i expect to pay for the Nikon Nc or a good polarization filter?

[BlackArcher101]

I have a UV filter on every lens just for the ease of cleaning. I would rather clean a filter than clean a lens. I haven't seen a difference in my photo quality, so to me it's piece of mind to put one on.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
Thats some great info thanks Mistu. I agree that the Nikon Nc is probably the best option at the moment. I always find on trips i am cleaning my lens to much and that drives me nuts.

How much can i expect to pay for the Nikon Nc or a good polarization filter?

Well, when the exchange was at par or better and not ~1.23 like it is now, NC filters were a steal to buy from B&H. Vistek seems to have them for $60 for a 67mm (I think thats what you need). They used to be WAY more expensive than that (at least when I was buying them) so thats pretty reasonable. The NC filters are pretty cool, when you hold them up and look at them, you CAN NOT tell there is glass in them, it literally just looks like a ring. If you hold it right up to a light or something you can see the glass though, of course.

Nikon brand polarizers are really expensive (~$200), but about 1/2 the price in USD from B&H (again, not such a good deal now because of the exchange, and its $30 shipping). I have a 67mm Kenko Pro 1 polarizer, I think I paid $100 at TCS and that is all anyone really needs. I have a 72mm Nikon branded polarizer for a different lens and I can't really tell any difference.

[teggypimp95]

Thanks again man!

Probably pop over to vistek and pick one up before my holiday.

Have a good one.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
Thanks again man!

Probably pop over to vistek and pick one up before my holiday.

Have a good one.

Your welcome. If you are buying something specifically for this vacation, I would probably rather have the polarizer for a cruise, with lots of water/reflections around and I assume tropical locations. It will do the same job as a NC filter for protecting your lens from constant cleaning, salt spray, etc.

[AccentAE86]

I've used three filters stacked on one another to get the effect I wanted and still did not notice a degradation in the image quality that anyone would ever see... even when looking closely.

I think filters get a worse rap than they deserve, personally.

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by teggypimp95
Thanks again man!

Probably pop over to vistek and pick one up before my holiday.

Have a good one.

I have one of each for sale right now, As well as a 77mm->67mm Reducer ring if you need 67mm... Check sig. Brand New, Never used.