How many people use UV filters? Filter recommendations for 70-200 f/4?

[jay_.]

<<I think that the use of a protective filter is justified only in hostile environments (e.g. in the middle of a sand storm) where there is a real risk that something will actually touch the lens. And as I'm never in such places I simply use the lens caps when the lens is in the bag and the lens hood at all other times (i.e. when it's on the camera).>>

 

Ah, I was waiting for someone to repeat this mindless rubber-stamp internet mantra. Thanks.

[mike sisk]

Jay: As I said, you can get ghosting in other situations, too.

 

I remember once shooting in the desert with a 50mm Distagon and like you had a scene

composed with the sun in the corner of the frame. I noticed some bad flare in the

viewfinder that disappeared when I removed the UV filter (an expensive multicoated

Hasselblad). It just depends on the situation.

 

Folks just need to be aware that there are conditions, especially those with bright lights in

the frame, where a flat piece of glass filter -- no matter how well it's multicoated -- can

cause unwanted effects. Folks with DSLRs need to be especially careful as ghosting may

not be visible in the viewfinder and only occurs at the moment of exposure when the

shutter exposes the shinny imaging chip, reflecting light back onto the filter.

 

Myself, I don't use UV filters much because I don't like to be taking them on and off all the

time. I often use ND grad filters outside and I'm more concerned about

scratching the front element when hurriedly removing the filter during changing light

conditions than I am about crud

getting on lens.

 

BTW, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is another benefit of the B+W filters -- they

use a brass ring which doesn't lock onto the lens like some of the cheap filters that use

aluminum rings.

[john_nastelin1]

Great thread, entertaining too. I have been using Canon-branded "UV Haze L-39 sharp cut" filters for protection but seldom see them discussed. Does anybody know where these filters come from, and their relative quality? Thanks.

[ted_marcus1]

I have always kept a high-quality multi-coated 1A or 1B "haze" filter on all my lenses, except when I'm using a polarizer. They have saved my lenses many times from that hazards of sand, dust, ocean spray, licky doggie tongues, pet rat sneezes, and airport "security" screener fingers. Neither the minimally-orange 1A/1B nor the minimally-yellow ultraviolet filters should have any noticeable effect on color balance (particularly with negative film), but if there's going to be an effect I prefer warm orange to bilious yellow. And besides, modern color films have a built-in ultraviolet filter layer.

[Greg M]

I had one of those "Sharp Cut" filters last year when I tried one on my 17-40 F4L- it was a Canon brand filter. I even called Canon & asked a "TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE" a question about it. He didn't even know they marketed such a filter- so much for phone help. That was the one that gave me fits with flare in some situations where I felt it shouldn't have. Sounds like these B&W filters will be much better.

[affen_kot]

nothing like a good cage match thread to make for good quality photo advice.

 

on topic; no one plans to scratch their front element, but incidental contact with the environment happens, and front elements accumulate blemishes over time. speaking all chemical-like, anything that comes in contact with the outside environment will slowly be oxidized by it, and in addition will also be subjected to free particulates (evaporated diesel biproducts, methylated mercury, etc.) that ebb at your element on a molecular level. let the lens spend a short while in a filtered enviroment, and then tighten a filter on it; if you're not planning on trading it up in the forseeable future.

[suman]

The never ending fight:-

PC/MAC

Canon/Nikon

Kodak/Fuji

Chevy/Ford

Film/Digital

UV filter/No filter

 

What else can be in this list? and we can have a vote for the most disputable topic.

[mike dixon]

I've never really understood the religious fervor with which some

people approach this topic. Unless I need a filter for a specific

purpose, I don't use one. I don't keep one on any of my lenses

for protection. I have had reflections and increased flare even

with good filters--I shoot in exreme contrast situations fairly

often.

 

I don't consider leaving off the filter to be reckless--it's just good

business. If filter reflections ruin even one good, saleable shot,

it could easily cost me more than any additional depreciation on

a lens from a few cleaning marks.

[bill_goldman]

Professionals can afford to abuse their equipment and also to be purists. The lowly amateur is better advised to be safe rather than sorry. Yet another factor that complicates this contentious subject.

[mike dixon]

I'd say that professionals can least afford to <i>abuse</i> their

equipment--after all, they need to depend on it working reliably.

Few professionals fret over the cosmetic condition, however, if

preserving the equipment's appearance interferes with using it

or degrades its performance.

[michael_peters1]

Let me add just one other factor.

Sometimes when I go shooting, I take one lens with me - and only one lens, Usually my 50/1.8.

 

I *might* take an extra roll of film, or an extra battery - but usually not. I go to shoot a roll of film.

 

I pop the lens cap off and stick it in my back pocket, as I go without any kind of camera bad - just the camera around my neck, taking the bus to wherever I'm going (local - not greyhound). Or a cab.

 

Those are the times when the most dust gets on the filter - I presume from my back pocket, via the cap, and then placing the cap on the lens.

 

Maybe that's a bad practice - but sometimes the freedom of not carrying ANYTHING except your wallet and your camera makes shooting so much easier. Also - my spare lens caps are in my camera bag which is left at home on these shoots - so if the lens cap gets dropped or lost, the filter would continue to provide protection when I'm not shooting.

 

I still think most cases where there was flare caused by a filter was either cheap filter, or not using the proper shade for the focal length. Sure, there are probably other cases where it also happens even with everything perfect (best filter, right shade) but I have to believe they are quite rare.

 

With respect to the pro who says having one perfect shot ruined by a filter being more than the value of the lens, what about the shot you can't take because a pigeon in flight crapped all over your front element? Or because some kid with an ice cream cone throws a tantrum when mom says he can't ride the pony?

 

With a filter - worse case scenario and it won't clean, and you don't have a spare - you can take it off and still shoot.

[vincent_j_m]

Mike must have a reeeeeallllly big back pocket to fit an SLR and a lens in it!

[mike dixon]

<i>With respect to the pro who says having one perfect shot

ruined by a filter being more than the value of the lens, what

about the shot you can't take because a pigeon in flight crapped

all over your front element? Or because some kid with an ice

cream cone throws a tantrum when mom says he can't ride the

pony? </i><P>

Shit washes off. If I had to, I could clean off the lens with my shirt

and saliva (though that's certainly not my preferred method). The

fact that you have to invent fanciful scenarios to dispute my point

probably strengthens my argument rather than weakening it.

[michael_peters1]

<i>The fact that you have to invent fanciful scenarios to dispute my point probably strengthens my argument rather than weakening it.</i>

<br> <br>

That does not logically follow.<br>

The reallity is, if something happens to foul the glass - a filter can be removed and replaced or just removed and you can still shoot. If something happens and there is nothing there - you got a problem.<br> <br>

That something could be anything from junk on the lens because you sneezed while facing the lens - or a crack because you dropped it. With a filter - the filter can be removed allowing you to keep shooting.<br> <br>

Keep doing what you prefer to do - but your arguement about having that one shot that is worth more than the lens being possibly messed up really is without merit. If you know what you are doing enough to make such money from your shot, you will have shot that lens enough and understand light enough to know when it is a danger. I'm not a pro, and my images do not have flare. I expect you would know situations that would cause flare better than me.<br> <br>-=-=<br> <br>

If you are a pro and you do take images that make you more money than a lens is worth, then you can justify financing a replacement for your lens if it does get damaged. Me - I can't justify financing a hobby, I only finance necessities for work or necesities for living (like my home). It's not fiscally responsible to finance hobby stuff. So if I get a damaged front element, unless it's a really cheap lens - it's likely months before I can replace it. Maybe that's why I insist on using filters AND a proper solid shade, as well as pouched for the lenses when they are put away - and carrying spare lens caps (especially rear - I carry two spare rear caps when I carry more than one lens)

[mike dixon]

<i>The reallity is, if something happens to foul the glass - a filter

can be removed and replaced or just removed and you can still

shoot. If something happens and there is nothing there - you got

a problem.<P>

That something could be anything from junk on the lens

because you sneezed while facing the lens - or a crack because

you dropped it. With a filter - the filter can be removed allowing

you to keep shooting.</i><P>

If something happens, and I don't have a protective filter, then I

have a dirty front lens element. As noted in my previous

response, that's not a permanent state: all I have to do is clean it

off. And a filter won't protect a lens from a violent impact like

being dropped on a hard surface. If you have a busted filter, it's

just as likely that a bent filter mount will cause it to be stuck to

the lens as it is that you be able to easily remove it. The only

damage I've ever experienced to one of my lenses (rather than

the hood) was a bent filter mount.<P>

 

<i>Keep doing what you prefer to do - but your arguement about

having that one shot that is worth more than the lens being

possibly messed up really is without merit.</i><P>

Actually, my argument was that the difference in resale value

between one lens with and one without cleaning marks could

easily be covered by missing a single saleable shot. Why is it

without merit? You made a statement--you haven't countered my

claim.<P>

<i>If you know what you are doing enough to make such money

from your shot, you will have shot that lens enough and

understand light enough to know when it is a danger. I'm not a

pro, and my images do not have flare. I expect you would know

situations that would cause flare better than me.</i><P>

I agree. That's why it's funny that people keep telling me I don't

understand why I should or shouldn't be using a protective filter!

[photographicsafaris]

Howzit,

 

Its only a couple of pennys worth of input, but try skylight filter, odds are you are in the

Northern hemisphere, where a little warmth to your photos will help and add a certain

charm to your end photos. its only something small, but the end result makes people

think your photos are "warm" and inviting. Err I think, 81 A

 

Been looking extensively at that lens too. hmmm yummy

Hoya P series stuff is great, scratch it and throw away a $20 filter not a $600 lens.

How about trying Canons own filter?,

 

But, take it off when you are in a stable environment and are unlikely to encounter

scratching devils. something about the manufacturers spending a bit of time designing a

lens to be used as is not with some other element in the design sucking out light.

[charles_lipton]

Another opinion....

I have the 70-200 4L...I had a Hoya UV filter on it...it was just fine....until I was in Hawaii in humid hot weather....The filter bound to the lens and it took me forever to remove it without damage to either...I found out the filter ring in Hoya and Tiffen filters is aluminum....I switched to B+W filters which use brass rings and of course awsome quality glass...I have not had any binding problems since....

Another thing...everyone says to skimp on filters..splurge on lenses...Why have the top of the line lens with any thing other than a top of the line filter...? a B+W is not that much more than a Hoya HMC in the same size...Not that Hoya and Tiffen are bad...they are wonderful filters....I just like the brass ring on the B+W's....

Let me know what you decide..

good luck..

chuck

[ryanjoseph]

I don't get it. If you don't shoot aerial resolution charts, or pieces of paper in dark rooms with laser beams projected on them, filters help. I have always used UV filters to protect my lenses, and have tested them in the real world (IE shooting landscapes). I CANNOT for the life of me tell the diffrence between using a good filter and not using one at all. Save yourself (and your lenses) some pain, buy good filters and protect your lens. I have had good luck with BW filters.