UV/Skylight Filters

<p>I don't want to have to take the time to clean my lens in the field. If something gets on the filter, I can pop it off and keep shooting. Usually, the something that gets on it is my finger... with a big front optic, like with my Sigma 50 1.4, my fingers are like a glass magnet when fumbling to get the lens cap on and off. I have never found filters to degrade images to any visible degree.</p>

<p>And speaking of filters, it amazes me how much people are willing to pay for the "quality" of them (not a bad thing in itself of course), but when was a single piece of coated "optical glass" worth more than say the humble 50mm 1.8 lenses which have no fewer than 6 pieces of optical glass of two or more types, barrels, AF motors etc?</p>

<p>Keith, regarding the drop-in filter in your 300mm. I've read that some long lenses with filter drawers are designed with the filter in mind and don't perform as well without one. My old 600mm f/5.6 ED (the one with the separate focusing unit) is noticeably sharper with a filter in its drawer. Could that be the case with your lens too?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They are a contemptible waste of time and money for all but a handful of photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for confirming my religious fervor theory, James. That's even better than my "Always!" and "Never!" examples. "Contemptible" ... I'd never have thought of that one.</p>

I was feeling the urge to use 'contemptible' all day at work and the opportunity came courtesy of UV filters. 'Evisceration' will be today's word if only someone will start a thread on keeping a polariser permanently mounted on one's lens.

 

:-)

<p>Since I always use lens hoods, I've tried a few times over the years to leave the UV filters off my lenses and consistently cap the lenses when bagging or setting down the camera. Within a day or two, however, I re-attached the filters, as I have a bad habit of putting my fingers on the lens' front element. A clumsy habit I cannot seem to break! But I do remove the filter briefly when shooting directly into a light source.</p>

<p>To see the effect of how UV filters degrade the lens' optical quality, I did a quick A/B test, but to exaggerate the effect, I stacked three Nikon L37C filters on my 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. I used that lens at 35mm to avoid any vignetting.</p>

<p>The test images were both captured with the 17-35mm at 35mm, f8 on the D700 at ISO 200. The D700 was mounted on a sturdy Gitzo tripod and I used the 1-second delay to avoid any camera shake. Again, one with three L37C filters on and the other with no filter. The two images were captured about 70 seconds apart so that you can see the shadows moved a little.</p>

<p>Can you tell any loss of sharpness?</p><div></div>

Hi Shun,

 

Shoot that lot towards the sun or with the sun glancing off your filters at a shallow angle - that is the real test. Sharpness should not be affected by good quality filters.

Shun Cheung wrote: <I>"Can you tell any loss of sharpness?"</I>

<P>

I see a loss of shadow detail.

<p>Here are different crops from those two exact same images, this time from the lower left side.</p>

<p>When I stacked three UV filters, I did lose a bit of light so that I used slightly different shutter speeds, 1/100 for no filter and 1/80 for using three filters. If you see any difference in shadow details, it is likely due to my raw processing. I have tried to get the exposure as identical as possible, but it is not completely the same.</p>

<p>I recall back in the 1960's when photocopiers were fairly new, there was a Xerox commercial where a father asked his little daughter to make a copy of a document. When the little girl brought them back, her father asked, "Which one is the original?"</p>

<p>So can you tell which is which?</p>

<p>P.S. The 17-35mm shows a bit of chromatic aberration. See the left edge of the tree. There is an obvious red line running down it.</p><div></div>

The lower crop shows more shadow detail and more highlight detail (in the tree trunk). This might be in your processing.

<p>Terrific examples, Shun. To my mind they support my personal opinion that a UV filter should always be mounted on my lenses except while shooting in the studio. Filters provide protection that has proved invaluable to me over the years while shooting in salt spray or wind blown dust of an abrasive nature such as volcanic dust or even the crushed rock used on many pathways in European parks. Cleaning dirt from your lenses over time will eventually abrade your front element coating, no matter how hard you think it is. I think Shun's test points out that a quality filter has minimal to no visible degrading effect on images. This has been my own observation throughout my career as well. Filter quality today is extraordinary.</p>

<p>My 105/2.5 AI Nikkor, bought used around 2002, came with the L37c filter so I just left it on. I don't think I've ever removed it. I can't even recall testing it without the filter.</p>

<p>And judging from the looks of things, it's about time I cleaned it.</p><div></div>

James Symington wrote in part:

 

"'Evisceration' will be today's word if only someone will start a thread on keeping a polariser permanently mounted on one's lens."

 

 

Well, I'll go along with you there, LOL.

 

 

Had to look that one up: perfectly appropriate ;)

Robert Hooper wrote: "<I>Terrific examples, Shun. To my mind they support my personal opinion that a UV filter should always be mounted on my lenses except while shooting in the studio"</I>

<P>

 

 

I was thinking the opposite. Perhaps I'm looking for more in my photos than you are.

<p>My experience of keeping UV filters on is that under normal circumstances it makes no difference - so long as you come from the 'only photograph subjects when the sun is behind you' school of photography. We all graduate from that school eventually - or should do. When you start shooting into the light - or heaven forbid even have the sun in your photograph - then that wretched piece of glass will often treat you badly with ghosts here and there.</p>

<p>What I find silly is the insistence on some people buying very expensive optics that are high-contrast and resistant to flare and then shoving some crap on the front for eternity and effectively rendering their fancy investment into a kit zoom under some pretty common circumstances.</p>

<p>Of course it is easy, and sometimes fun, to make sweeping generalisations about this surprisingly thorny issue. There are plainly instances where putting some protective filter in front of your lens is completely appropriate and sensible and indeed I own a few UVs although I honesly can't remember the last time I put one on - I think it was Iceland in 2003 for photographing a waterfall close up.</p>

<p>What it really boils down to - in my opinion - is how seriously you take your craft. If you are a casual photographer then by all means stack all the filters you want on your lens and I may even spare you evisceration :-) If you are a photojournalist in the midst of a dusty battle then of course it is appropriate to take precautions. Street photography - a bit of flare often adds character etc etc etc</p>

<p>But as a landscaper I go to extraordinary efforts and expense to get to beautiful locations, get up at unearthly hours, struggle up mountains with a large tripod and heavy expensive equipment and all of the other things I do to myself to try and get the pictures I want. Having done all that the <em>very</em> <em>last thing I want to do </em>is to compromise image quality even in the most minute way if I <em>don't absolutely have to</em> (as a landscaper you have to use grads often of course). That is why people who claim to pursue fine art/landscape photography but who leave UV filters on permanently sell themselves short. To me it betrays a lack of technical rigour, a lack of pride and thought about what you are trying to achieve and believe it or not, at least in my eyes, a lack of reverence to the hopefully wonderful scene in front of you. Lex's prescient comment about religion is not totally off the mark I find. Although a staunch atheist I get very, very immersed when I am shooting somewhere beautiful and my whole world condenses wonderfully down to the landscape in which I find myself. Does that ring a bell in anyone? Well, I feel strongly compelled to do the utmost justice to that particular moment in my life and to that place and a tiny part of that is tipping my cap to the lens designer at Zeiss or Nikon who has gone to a lot of trouble to allow me to record that instant unsullied by superfluous junk. I don't understand photographers who would knowingly cut corners in such a situation.</p>

<p>Of course there is no link between the actual quality of the photograph and how you achieve it. For all I know the best landscape photographs ever taken were shot using a camera festooned with useless filters and taken handheld whereas almost all my photographs, which are at best OK, have been taken with scrupulous attention to detail. But at least when I am taking photographs I know I am doing it as well as I know how whereas the security blanket UV filter landscaper really, really isn't. Irrespective of the final results.</p>

<p>Worried about your lens? Use a lens hood. Still worried? Get insurance. Still worried? Lock yourself in your bathroom and photograph the taps - just don't turn them on :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wonder which image Douglas actually prefers; it could well be the version with three L37c stacked on the lens. I have been very careful not to point out which image is which.</p>

<p>Yesterday I took additional images under different conditions, and I have to admit that I cannot tell any image degradation from stacking three UV filters on the lens. Of course, nobody with the right mind would do that in actual shooting situations, but I think it is safe to say adding one high-quality clear filter should be just fine. Occasionally if I need to shoot into a light source, as I probably do in 1% of my images, I wouldn't put a filter in front, nor would I use the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D in those situations as I demonstrated in this thread: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UKN6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UKN6</a><br />In the other 99% of my images, I think I am going to use a protection filter a lot more often, and the 24mm AF-D is still a decent lens to use. However, if you mainly shoot at night into artifical lights as Kent Staubus does, your consideration should be quite different.</p>

<p>My experience is a bit similar to Eric Friedemann's: when I was a teenager and using Minolta, once I was changing lenses with one lens in each hand; a friend accidentally bumped into my elbow and I dropped a 135mm/f2.8 lens on concrete. That lens had a "telescope" type sliding lens hood (similar to the one on the 300mm/f4 AF-S), so the hood was no help. The aluminum lens cap was smashed and so was the Hoya skylight filter under it. The filter ring was so badly damaged that I had to take the lens back to Minolta to get it off, but otherwise there was not even a scratch on the lens or on the front element.</p>

<p>A lens hood is good for protecting your lens in some ways, but it doesn't help much with any salt spray, mist, blowing sand or children's fingers. A lens cap is helpful but you cannot shoot through it, and occasionally that 0.5 second it takes to remove the cap means you miss a shot. I would rather be as ready as I can all the time. I also wouldn't hesitate to clean a filter in the field with my shirt. Therefore, using a filter helps me keep everything clean and improve my images.</p>

<p>If you still have doubts, try an A/B test yourself and see whether putting one high-quality clear filter will really degrade your images <strong>under your typical shooting conditions</strong>.</p>

<p>The following image is to emphasis the tests I did. Normally don't shoot with three L37c filters.</p><div></div>

<p>Your expeiment is noteworthy Shun, but if you were using uncoated laminated filters like the regular old Tiffen Sky-A or similar, your results are going down the toilet. They'll be full of that nasty pink cast that shows up with even one. So it's necessary to qualify you're using high quality original Nikon coated filters. Like I mentioned in my first response, the premium schott glass filters will be at least that good. In fact if you use the B+W K1.5 sky filter on one of the older S series Bronica lenses it actually improves their performance. It bumps up the contrast and gives more tonal separation. This could probabl hold true with some of the older Nikon E series lenses and similar "kit" lenses where corners are somewhat cut for cost effectiveness. But again, why put an $80 filter on a $60 lens. Also, is your c amera on auto WB or set to a particular Kelvin, because with many Sky filters the cast is going pink on anything white, yellow, once you use a UV-B or stronger, providing you're in neutral light of course, not open shade etc. </p>

<p>

<p><em><strong>"(I)f you were using uncoated laminated filters like the regular old Tiffen Sky-A or similar, your results are going down the toilet."</strong></em></p>

<p>Old Vaudville joke: I told my doctor I broke my leg in two places and asked what I should do. The doctor said, "stop going to those places."</p>

<p>As I noted in my first entry, I use premium Nikon <strong>coated</strong> protection filters on my lenses. There are customers at my store who buy $1,500 plus lenses, then insist on putting the cheapest possible uncoated protection filter on the lens, insisting the quality of the filter is irrelevant. Then, they're not thrilled with their results- go figure.</p>

</p>

<p>I just did some checking with Nikon repair center APS in Chicago. I asked how much it would cost to do a simple front element replacement on Nikon lenses 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR. It was running about $325 for each. Next, I looked up the cost of a B+W UV MRC 77mm filter (could not find listing for L37c.) B&H lists them for $112 plus shipping. SO, if I were to place a quality multicoated UV filter on each of my four most used lenses*, it would cost me about $430. (I have three other lenses I use regularly too!) That's quite a bit more than the price of a repair. Thus, I conclude that for me it's more economical to continue NOT using UV filters. Another angle is maybe eventually I will mess up a front element. Then, I will have to pay ~$325 for repair. If I buy the filters it is CERTAIN I'll be spending $430, and as I've experienced there is NO guarantee the flimsy glass is going to stop damage to the element, making my total loss even bigger. I'm very tough on camera gear, and every year I manage to damage or destroy at least a camera or a lens. I'm not careless, it's just that I like to photo in very risky situations such as around heavy machinery, large unpredictible animals, and in violent weather etc. Even taking that into account, I've never once had any damage to a lens element because it didn't have a filter on it. In fact the only damage I did have was when a filter was on it. I do use lens hoods and lens caps for protection and have had zero problems. I have had problems with images being ruined by filters. Anyway, it makes no economic sense for me to use UV filters when a repair is clearly cheaper than the filters.</p>

<p>Kent in SD <br />*Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 &<br />70-200mm f2.8 VR, Sigma 30mm f1.4</p>

<p>A couple of things:</p>

<p>1. Because digital sensors are supposedly less suseptable to the effects of UV light than, say, Ektachrome, Nikon has apparently stopped making L37c filters. Though, like Shun, I still have extra L37c filters lying around. </p>

<p>The more current Nikon protection filter is the colorless NC. A Nikon 77mm NC filter runs $90 at B&H photo:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=77mm+nc&N=0&InitialSearch=yes">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=77mm+nc&N=0&InitialSearch=yes</a></p>

<p>2. APS in Chicago is a "Nikon Authorized" repair service. Nothing against APS in Chicago, but when my lenses need out-of-warranty repairs they are sent to Nikon in New York or California.</p>

<p>While I can't follow some of Kent's logic, using or not using filters isn't a religious issue, its a personal choice. Over the years, I've had several protection filters ruined- the last one by candle wax at a wedding. So, I'm a believer in protection filters.</p>

<p>This debate about whether or not to use protective glass over the front element of our lenses is one which can never be won by either side. Reasonable people can disagree on the efficacy of covering or not covering, Photographers have different tolerances for lens coating degradation, dirt accumulation, or the perceived negative effect of a high quality filter on their images. One must ultimately make up their own minds regarding this matter based on experience, shooting style, and personal preference.</p>

<p>My recommendation is that if you decide to use a filter as protection for your lenses, you purchase a quality product with multi coatings on both front and rear surfaces. Time and experience is the the only way you will eventually be able to decide what is best for yourself, Ray.</p>

<p>Well yes, Robert, I do agree it's a personal choice. I'm just pointing out that the economics of filters don't pan out. If I were to put a quality filter on all my eight lenses, I could easily afford TWO front element repairs. Or even another nice lens. I also sent out a repair inquiry to KEH repair service and they charge about the same as APS. Since I've never ever had an element damaged, I can't justify spending ~$800 for filters to "protect" against a -possible- $300 repair. Recently I've begun using the Nikons 18-55mm & 55-200mm VR lenses as my compact travel pair, on my D80. B+W mrc UV filters for them would cost about $45 each, shipped. I paid $250 for the pair of lenses, so it makes little sense to pay an additional $90 for low level protection against a theoretical repair. My strategy is to simply sell a damaged lens (from whatever cause) for parts on ebay and buy another of these cheap lenses. It comes down to economics for me. I'd rather spend ~$800 on another lens than on UV filters.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Hi Kent,</p>

<p>I have to respectfully disagree with you. Since I live in Hawaii, I am surrounded by volcanic dust. Volcanic dust is extremely abrasive and is actually "pumice". When wind blown pumice or even the fine volcanic dust kicked up from trekking gets on my protective filters, it would ruin them if I used traditional methods to clean them. I have to actually remove my filters after an outing and rinse them in warm soapy water followed by a fresh water rinse. Then I can clean them in a traditional manner by wiping them with a cotton bud moistened with alcohol followed by a microfiber wipe. I clean my cameras with compressed air and a damp cloth. If I did not use a filter to protect the front elements of my lenses, they would be ruined very quickly. I realize my particular situation is not like your's or even that common, but my point is that your philosophy is not for everyone.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> wrote:<br />I asked how much it would cost to do a simple front element replacement on Nikon lenses17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm VR. It was running about $325 for each. Next, I looked up the cost of a B+W UV MRC 77mm filter (could not find listing for L37c.) B&H lists them for $112 plus shipping. SO, if I were to place a quality multicoated UV filter on each of my four most used lenses, it would cost me about $430. That's quite a bit more than the price of a repair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excuse me Kent but as an engineer your calculation seems wrong to me!<br />You are comparing the cost of <strong><em>*all four*</em></strong> filters against the repair cost of <strong><em>*one*</em></strong> lens!<br />To my book it's like that: one filter to protect one lens costs ~$112.00, the repair of the front element of one lens costs ~$325.<br />I think that from an economical POV it's more than worth to use filters than paying to repair your lens' front element.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>