Author Topic: Filter on digital: Clear / UV  (Read 1318 times)

MEPER

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 351
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2020, 20:47:41 »
Maybe there is a market for "hard rubber" lens hoods that can take the shock if a camera is dropped and the lens hits first.

frankv

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • I'm in it for the music!
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2020, 20:55:55 »
Many years ago, I bought a second hand 18-70DX. I was unsatisfied with it the first few weeks. I found the images soft and fuzzy, lacking in fine detail. But when I removed the filter that came with it, it was suddenly crisp and sharp. The filter was of a known brand, but probably not expensive. Since then i have not used filters unless for spesific tasks.

Put on the lens hood, and you are ready for work.
Frank Vevik

Steven P.

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Cumpulsive Tinkerer
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2020, 03:40:22 »
I've broken a lot more filters than front elements and do everything possible to avoid using a hood. (it does sometime work.)

But in all honesty, anything, any kind of glass will impair.

Thanks,
I needed a smile,
S.


Bill De Jager

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 472
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2020, 18:57:44 »
Commentary on UV filters on digital cameras: Diglloyd.  Summary is that common UV-cut filters won't make a practical difference in suppressing UV.  This is because the filter stack on the sensor cuts out light up to longer wavelengths (far visible range) than the external filter will.

MEPER

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 351
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2020, 18:14:04 »
I asked "B+W" about the topic and also about stacking a pol-filter on the UV-filter. In the B+W link which shows the difference between UV-filter and none (which is probably from the film days) the picture above shows a pol-filter on top of an UV or clear filter. Something I never do so asked about it. This was the answer:

"the effect of a UV Filter and a Clear Filter compared on a Digital Sensor to Film is very small. It really does not matter if you use a clear or a UV. But there is no problem to put your Polarizer on top of your UV as long as you use B+W Filters. We have the highest Transmission because of the special glas and the MRC Nano coating."

CS

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1239
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2020, 18:55:04 »
I asked "B+W" about the topic and also about stacking a pol-filter on the UV-filter. In the B+W link which shows the difference between UV-filter and none (which is probably from the film days) the picture above shows a pol-filter on top of an UV or clear filter. Something I never do so asked about it. This was the answer:

"the effect of a UV Filter and a Clear Filter compared on a Digital Sensor to Film is very small. It really does not matter if you use a clear or a UV. But there is no problem to put your Polarizer on top of your UV as long as you use B+W Filters. We have the highest Transmission because of the special glas and the MRC Nano coating."

I would mot expect B+W to say anything negative about using their filters, which would not increase  their sales.
Carl

MEPER

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 351
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2020, 19:21:41 »
That is right so answer is expected but still interesting to get their view.
My own main reason for using UV/clear filter is not so much for "knock protecting" of front element but more for never (or very rarely) need cleaning of the font element and when it is necessary it can be done in controlled environment.

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2355
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2020, 20:10:00 »

My own main reason for using UV/clear filter is not so much for "knock protecting" of front element but more for never (or very rarely) need cleaning of the font element and when it is necessary it can be done in controlled environment.
Exactly.  If I have to clean the front optical surface with a cloth potentially contaminated with invisible blow sand particles, better it be a filter than the front element of a lens.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

Steven P.

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Cumpulsive Tinkerer
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2020, 22:13:31 »
Just to clarify, I use front filters because lens caps are a cumbersome. Dump the uncapped lens back in the bag, switch lens, get the shot.

What kind of sack do you use to schlep your 70-200/Vr/X/FL with that ridiculous hood attached?

Golf club bag?

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 2634
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #24 on: May 04, 2020, 23:50:59 »
It is easy to envision the non-hooded lens gets its "protective" filter cracked in that bag ... Repair facilities know this all too well. I have yet to see a ridiculous lens hood. OK a few exceptions like the factory hood for the AFS 200/2 come to mind. However, the lens itself performs admirably with a 300/2.8 hood on it.

A hood is a lens' best friend.


Roland Vink

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1245
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2020, 00:22:15 »
In my early days of film I used to put UV filters on my lenses for protection. However I found that I was constantly swapping them out for my polariser, which was inconvenient in the field. Extra handling of filters near the front element also increases the risk of putting your finger on the lens or filter, or dropping the filter in the process - have done that many times. I'm sure the extra air-glass surfaces don't help with flare, contrast and sharpness either. So I stopped using UV or clear filters except when extra protection against dust or salt spray was needed, and even then I was often using a polariser anyway.

I never got in the habit of using hoods as I found them inconvenient, they take up too much space in my camera bag and I like keeping my kit nice and compact. Like clear filters they also make using polarisers difficult, you have to take the hood off to put the polariser on and off which slowed me down and increased the risk of stray fingers and fumbles. If I noticed the lens was flaring, I would use my hand to shade the front element, or move into the shade, or change the angle of view so the flare went away.

In the digital age I use polarisers much less, they seem to make less of a difference than they did on film (chromes), and often seem to cause a loss of contrast. So now I have started using hoods more often, I have a couple which are relatively small while providing a useful amount of protection. Sometimes I simply put an empty filter ring (no glass) on the lens. It keeps the unit nice and compact, the lens cap still fits, and those few extra mm do make a useful difference in keeping fingers away from the front element. Most modern lenses have plastic filter threads, so an empty metal filter ring also helps to protect the front rim from knocks. With no glass the filter ring is easier to handle - no risk of putting fingerprints on it, so it is easier to swap out if I do need a polariser.

Steven P.

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Cumpulsive Tinkerer
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2020, 09:35:54 »
BR,
That hood on your fast tele is fine. Look at what's included with the newer 70-300, all longer zooms? How about the old 80-400VR? That was a wonderful hood.
I use the old metal, crinkle coat 77mm and sometimes use a wide 82mm hood on 2-lens, 17-70mm. Heck. when i get a higher end rig up and running, I will use a hood.

(I have a small pile of scalloped, Nikon plastic hoods, I cannot keep track or use. Basically worthless, If I'd cut all the tele hoods in half all would be better utility.)

ColinM

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1010
  • Bristol, UK
    • My Pictures
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2020, 12:33:56 »
I no longer use any filters.

In the past, I've found them useful when there's been a lot of spray around, especially sea spray.
I also used to shoot at motorcycle meets from time to time, and there were a lot of fast moving grit & other particles in the air then.

Any glasses wearer knows what their lens has been exposed to by the end of a shoot :)

If my dream came true and I was sat by the side of the track with a new 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4, I might ponder this a bit more as I don't believe a lens hood would be enough. However I'm not sure pros use filters???

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 2634
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2020, 15:37:38 »
For the 'dream' lenses you mention, a filter cannot be put on the front anyway. Any filter goes into a rear drawer.

Most 'pro' photographers would use a filter only  if it is required.

MFloyd

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1393
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
    • Adobe Portfolio
Re: Filter on digital: Clear / UV
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2020, 18:24:06 »
I stopped using filters when I switched to digital. But I always use a lens hood for the reasons mentioned above.
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν