To all you pro UV Filter people: If a UV Filter is a good thing to have why don't Nikon or Canon add them to their lenses like they do for the lenshood? I only use them if i know that i am about to shoot in a very, yery rough environment and i have my camera protected as well.
I use both LOL I think the UV filter does protect my 50mm since there's at least an inch of space between the front end and the actual glass of the lens.
No offense, but if you think your plastic bayonet mount lens hood adds any protection from anything but extraneous light, then you are deeply misinformed. While the UV filter in itself has little positive effect (except for UV haze reduction it is designed for, it does offer lens protection from incoming objects, sand, dust and spray. The Nikon NC is my protective filter of choice as it has NO degradation of image. I have replaced 2 filters in 30 years, much cheaper than replacing a $1500 lens!
Always use UV filter. It doesn't hurt and it does work when your're shooting in high altitude or near large bodies of water. Try shooting at the beach without a UV filter and you will notice the difference.
some weather sealed lens is only completely sealed if you use filter, so filter has protection purpose without deteriorating image quality. this additional glass/filter is already anticipated by lens manufacturer
I use a filter. I'd rather not be rubbing on the front element when I'm cleaning things (micro abrasions and the front coating). Also, UV light does have a very visible effect in the right situations, such as high altitude, near bodies of water, etc etc. Taking a picture with and without a UV filter indoors, 6 feet from the subject and under a light that doesn't produce UV is NOT a fair comparison.
filters are a must in certain circumstances. It is your choice in the end. So I learned nothing, except i have more change in my pocket than Obama has given me.
Dude i do not thing your lens is that expensice i have a real lense canon 70-200 2.8 IS and i would be an idiot if i dont protect glass with a proper filter,, u spend thousans in lens why shouldnt spend 70 more on a good b+m filter
i prefer to clean, touch, scratch the filter instead than the front element
You have got to spend on protection, if one day a lens gets a deep scratch, i will have to live with it and if i want to resell it i will have a though time because of it.
Well I have Sony a560 and Sigma DC 18-200. How I figure out that I need this filter. I used the flash and was taking the pictures when sun directly illuminated an object (person). Every time I had colors shifted to the yellow. I did not know what to do.I was happy with not expensive DSLR. So I bought Sigma UV, since the UV light comes as from the sun as from the flash.It solved my problem. The color balance was restored. Perhaps,with more expensive lens you don't need it but I can see difference
1. You are holding nikon 14-24 mm, its hood don't come off... you are not using the hood for protection, your lens just has it.
2. They don't make filters for that lens unless you buy a special frame. that lens has no filter thread.
3. Filter protect glass from send, water and dust, not lens being dropped.
4. The distortion, softness etc from any glass is directly proportional to its thickness. Filters are specifically made very thin to reduce the attenuation of light as much as possible.
I never use a UV filter because if there is high light and you are not using a lens hood, it will reflect on to your lens. Mos tof the time you don't notice it until you go to edit the pictures. Very annoying when you have streaks :) great videos btw
I had a UV filter break when my camera dropped on the ground. I am unsure how the lens would have reacted if it wasn't there though that lens didn't have a lens hood. After doing some research I have chosen not to use a UV filter for two reasons - 1) It is a cheap piece of glass that may impact sharpness/auto focus (experienced) 2) hassle to clean as it isn't sealed to the lens so I find you end up having to take off the filter, clean the filter on both sides and the lens regularly.
The other thing to remember is that if you clean the uv filter wrong it is a cheep mistake to cleaning the lens wrong. That can happen from time to time.
I don't worry about the front element of the glass as even a slight scratch does not deteriorate the image quality. I would be more protective of the other end of the lens, the end connecting to the camera body.
@KBeOKEH Why would you worry about the inner end of the lens? LOL it's hardly get touched unless you're an toucher... I would worry about the front element because of scratches... it does effect your image lol... not a small scratch but what about a big one?.... lol
@jl644 You say the scratch on the front element of the lens can affect it's performance? LOL I shoot with my Nikkor 70-200mm lens 85% of the time with a fairly deep scratch, 2 inches long & works just fine. And perhaps the inner part of the lens is hardly touched, but for photojournalists often on a rush, don't have time to put the cap back on. Often they mount, and un-mount the lenses and put it back into their bag. And yes you can scratch the butt of the lens. I've seen it happen.
@jl644 Dude... lol most photojournalists doesn't even put lens cap... so they are called professional. lol... they don't care about their lens!.. cuz they have money to replace it.... duhh..???
Most photographers don't literally run around with their camera as if they are in a race track, and are many of us that clumsy that we run into poles or into walls or simply drop it? Isn't that what camera straps are for? I NEVER us a lens filter. It's wasting image quality, wast of my dollars, and it actually does more damage on you lens if you think about it....filter glass break, broken fragments scratching surface of your lens.
@User6327 CPL is different to UV filter though. CPOL is designed to effect image a certain way, UV I think dates back to film days and doesn't impact Digital cameras as much these days.
I'd use a UV filter just for the reason of protection. If your going to invest in an expensive piece of glass, I wouldn't want anything touching the front element, water, dust can all blow into the lens and those things are much better to be cleaned off of a filter than risking any form of scratches on a front element. If I wanted to see effect of a filter, I'd go for a CPL. UV, is for peace of mind and protection in my opinion.
@KeijinShiho the front element of a lens is always much more scratch resistant than a uv filter. also, you have a lens hood. if you shoot in extreme environments - shooting dirt bikes or rally cars, shooting in the jungle or a sandstorm, using a UV makes sense. else? no way.
@Air50HE However much scratch resistance it has, would you rather wipe dirt off a removable UV filter or your costly front element. It just makes sense to add as much protection as possible, if it can go wrong, it will and damage is inevitable. I can't afford to be taking risks with investments. So yes, totally agreeing with you. I have a UV for all of my 2 lenses. haha!
First honest opinion I've encountered, thank you Ken.
I bought my first Canon L Lens 17-40mm...
I did purchase and do use a Hoya HD UV Filter mostly for protection... I believe a shot is just that. Small differences in image quality are really secondary to the actual shot.. in imagination and artistic expression. I've gotten so many classic shots from my cellphone camera that I cannot begin to tell you. Its all in the shot but quality does count, just not as much... In my opinion.
When I shoot at the beach or around harsh elements I use the UV filter just because I am always cleaning the front-most element in that environment. I don't think they do much else though.
it depends on the users condition, if its in an environment where little rocks, water, or something that fly's at your lens even with hood then you're gonna need the uv, unless you want to damage the lens glass. but if youre in a pretty calm normal environment then theres really no need for a filter.
Hi, dude, i was told by the sales guy that the UV Filter can block the UV from entering the APSC sensor, if not, the UV can cause damage on the sensor & make picture color less contrast, izit true?
To all you pro UV Filter people: If a UV Filter is a good thing to have why don't Nikon or Canon add them to their lenses like they do for the lenshood? I only use them if i know that i am about to shoot in a very, yery rough environment and i have my camera protected as well.
marcusboos78 1 week ago
I use both LOL I think the UV filter does protect my 50mm since there's at least an inch of space between the front end and the actual glass of the lens.
Lilreeces10 1 week ago
No offense, but if you think your plastic bayonet mount lens hood adds any protection from anything but extraneous light, then you are deeply misinformed. While the UV filter in itself has little positive effect (except for UV haze reduction it is designed for, it does offer lens protection from incoming objects, sand, dust and spray. The Nikon NC is my protective filter of choice as it has NO degradation of image. I have replaced 2 filters in 30 years, much cheaper than replacing a $1500 lens!
thestrapguy 4 weeks ago
Always use UV filter. It doesn't hurt and it does work when your're shooting in high altitude or near large bodies of water. Try shooting at the beach without a UV filter and you will notice the difference.
summerdying111 1 month ago
some weather sealed lens is only completely sealed if you use filter, so filter has protection purpose without deteriorating image quality. this additional glass/filter is already anticipated by lens manufacturer
majestixblue 1 month ago
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS , wouldn't dream of putting a filter on it , that defeats the purpose of getting the best optics .
bannerex 1 month ago
I use a filter. I'd rather not be rubbing on the front element when I'm cleaning things (micro abrasions and the front coating). Also, UV light does have a very visible effect in the right situations, such as high altitude, near bodies of water, etc etc. Taking a picture with and without a UV filter indoors, 6 feet from the subject and under a light that doesn't produce UV is NOT a fair comparison.
blakemcguire 1 month ago
Film yes, digital no.
hinterstella 1 month ago
filters are a must in certain circumstances. It is your choice in the end. So I learned nothing, except i have more change in my pocket than Obama has given me.
ldballoon4 1 month ago
Interesting how your fingers look like there is some UV blockage when you hold up the filter compared to the rest of your hand.
ensonmr 2 months ago
Dude i do not thing your lens is that expensice i have a real lense canon 70-200 2.8 IS and i would be an idiot if i dont protect glass with a proper filter,, u spend thousans in lens why shouldnt spend 70 more on a good b+m filter
hotmail1929 2 months ago
i prefer to clean, touch, scratch the filter instead than the front element
You have got to spend on protection, if one day a lens gets a deep scratch, i will have to live with it and if i want to resell it i will have a though time because of it.
ACMDevils 2 months ago
Well I have Sony a560 and Sigma DC 18-200. How I figure out that I need this filter. I used the flash and was taking the pictures when sun directly illuminated an object (person). Every time I had colors shifted to the yellow. I did not know what to do.I was happy with not expensive DSLR. So I bought Sigma UV, since the UV light comes as from the sun as from the flash.It solved my problem. The color balance was restored. Perhaps,with more expensive lens you don't need it but I can see difference
SergSpace 3 months ago
1. You are holding nikon 14-24 mm, its hood don't come off... you are not using the hood for protection, your lens just has it.
2. They don't make filters for that lens unless you buy a special frame. that lens has no filter thread.
3. Filter protect glass from send, water and dust, not lens being dropped.
4. The distortion, softness etc from any glass is directly proportional to its thickness. Filters are specifically made very thin to reduce the attenuation of light as much as possible.
fft81 3 months ago
@fft81 ? You obviously don't own a Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm 2.8 ED. Its a AF-S 24-120mm f4 ED VR.
Attenuation of light?
opticalprism 3 months ago
what about polarizers?
gedeo 4 months ago
I never use a UV filter because if there is high light and you are not using a lens hood, it will reflect on to your lens. Mos tof the time you don't notice it until you go to edit the pictures. Very annoying when you have streaks :) great videos btw
billyhall08 4 months ago
I wish I had taken a photography class in high school and college instead of stupid wood shop. Ugh.
treefireguy 4 months ago
But that same logic would then put me off using any type of filer.
111Socrates777 4 months ago
Spend $50 or $70 for a good UV filter is better than Lost a expensive and useful lens!
So, for me, it's a good idea put it in the front of my lenses!
adlbh 5 months ago
I had a UV filter break when my camera dropped on the ground. I am unsure how the lens would have reacted if it wasn't there though that lens didn't have a lens hood. After doing some research I have chosen not to use a UV filter for two reasons - 1) It is a cheap piece of glass that may impact sharpness/auto focus (experienced) 2) hassle to clean as it isn't sealed to the lens so I find you end up having to take off the filter, clean the filter on both sides and the lens regularly.
dentunes 5 months ago
The other thing to remember is that if you clean the uv filter wrong it is a cheep mistake to cleaning the lens wrong. That can happen from time to time.
Jawsjawsjawsrg 5 months ago
I don't worry about the front element of the glass as even a slight scratch does not deteriorate the image quality. I would be more protective of the other end of the lens, the end connecting to the camera body.
KBeOKEH 6 months ago
@KBeOKEH Why would you worry about the inner end of the lens? LOL it's hardly get touched unless you're an toucher... I would worry about the front element because of scratches... it does effect your image lol... not a small scratch but what about a big one?.... lol
jl644 4 months ago
@jl644 You say the scratch on the front element of the lens can affect it's performance? LOL I shoot with my Nikkor 70-200mm lens 85% of the time with a fairly deep scratch, 2 inches long & works just fine. And perhaps the inner part of the lens is hardly touched, but for photojournalists often on a rush, don't have time to put the cap back on. Often they mount, and un-mount the lenses and put it back into their bag. And yes you can scratch the butt of the lens. I've seen it happen.
KBeOKEH 4 months ago
@jl644 Dude... lol most photojournalists doesn't even put lens cap... so they are called professional. lol... they don't care about their lens!.. cuz they have money to replace it.... duhh..???
jl644 4 months ago
Most photographers don't literally run around with their camera as if they are in a race track, and are many of us that clumsy that we run into poles or into walls or simply drop it? Isn't that what camera straps are for? I NEVER us a lens filter. It's wasting image quality, wast of my dollars, and it actually does more damage on you lens if you think about it....filter glass break, broken fragments scratching surface of your lens.
KBeOKEH 6 months ago
better off. safer on. just like a condom.
theaymanmahmood 6 months ago 38
Comment removed
theaymanmahmood 6 months ago
I love my CPL, I can't get the true rich colors in post as easily shooting w/o one.
If you've ever shot shiny objects, you know what I mean. But we all have opinions on gear, I personally love my UV filters.
User6327 7 months ago
@User6327 CPL is different to UV filter though. CPOL is designed to effect image a certain way, UV I think dates back to film days and doesn't impact Digital cameras as much these days.
dentunes 5 months ago
I'd use a UV filter just for the reason of protection. If your going to invest in an expensive piece of glass, I wouldn't want anything touching the front element, water, dust can all blow into the lens and those things are much better to be cleaned off of a filter than risking any form of scratches on a front element. If I wanted to see effect of a filter, I'd go for a CPL. UV, is for peace of mind and protection in my opinion.
KeijinShiho 7 months ago 15
@KeijinShiho the front element of a lens is always much more scratch resistant than a uv filter. also, you have a lens hood. if you shoot in extreme environments - shooting dirt bikes or rally cars, shooting in the jungle or a sandstorm, using a UV makes sense. else? no way.
Air50HE 7 months ago
@Air50HE However much scratch resistance it has, would you rather wipe dirt off a removable UV filter or your costly front element. It just makes sense to add as much protection as possible, if it can go wrong, it will and damage is inevitable. I can't afford to be taking risks with investments. So yes, totally agreeing with you. I have a UV for all of my 2 lenses. haha!
KeijinShiho 7 months ago
First honest opinion I've encountered, thank you Ken.
I bought my first Canon L Lens 17-40mm...
I did purchase and do use a Hoya HD UV Filter mostly for protection... I believe a shot is just that. Small differences in image quality are really secondary to the actual shot.. in imagination and artistic expression. I've gotten so many classic shots from my cellphone camera that I cannot begin to tell you. Its all in the shot but quality does count, just not as much... In my opinion.
Thomasmollo 8 months ago
When I shoot at the beach or around harsh elements I use the UV filter just because I am always cleaning the front-most element in that environment. I don't think they do much else though.
timkandy 8 months ago
it depends on the users condition, if its in an environment where little rocks, water, or something that fly's at your lens even with hood then you're gonna need the uv, unless you want to damage the lens glass. but if youre in a pretty calm normal environment then theres really no need for a filter.
eyun01 8 months ago
I have all Canon "L" len's,I use a UV filter simply for front glass protection. Its all personal I suppose. Great vids though,I like them. Thx
fasteddy60 9 months ago
Thank you and welcome!
KentWeakley 9 months ago
Thank you and welcome!
KentWeakley 9 months ago
Convinced... so i am subscribing! cheers!
truknayr23 9 months ago
Hi, dude, i was told by the sales guy that the UV Filter can block the UV from entering the APSC sensor, if not, the UV can cause damage on the sensor & make picture color less contrast, izit true?
snowong 1 year ago