| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2004 12:24:53 AM · #1 |
I can't decide whether it's worth using a UV filter (I'm looking at the Nikon L37C I suppose, that one's good right?) on my Nikkor 60mm micro or not.
The front element retracts pretty far into the lens, but then again, I have to get pretty close to stuff with it...
I guess what I'm REALLY needing to know is, just how much does using a UV filter (such as the one mentioned) really hurt the image quality? I know some guys say "I never use filters, they degrade the image too much", and other say they'd never go without a UV filter.
I hate to use one if it's going to degrade quality in any noticable degree; but OTOH I'd hate for a bug to fly up in my 60mm micro and take a dump on it, too.
Anyone know (at a more than "gut feeling" level) what kind of quality different using a UV filter will really make?
Thanks for any help. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:29:25 AM · #2 |
I have one (a cheap one, really cheap on) on my 602. Why? Cause i had the camera about a month and got a scratch on the lens. I can see it, but (thank god) it does not show on any images. I also figure it helps keep the dust and dirt out of the autozoom lens a bit better than nothing at all.
When i get around to getting a dSLR I will get UV and polarizer filters for every lens. To me it is cheap insurance, and I use my PL filter a LOT outside.
If you spend the bucks ona good filter, you will degrade the image the least.
If the local camera store has a filter to try, take youcamera there and take a few shots with and without and go home and look at the images - you can then make an informed decision.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:29:46 AM · #3 |
| As long as you don't have a million scratches on the filter there shouldn't be a problem. Buy a new one. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:30:13 AM · #4 |
Buy the UV filter and run some tests yourself.
I did--put the camera on a tripod, and photographed a shelf of books at various apertures. I checked corner and center sharpness and I could see absolutely no difference in sharpness or contrast between the photos taken with the UV filter and the ones without. Now I am totally comfortable leaving the filter on all the time.
I suspect that as long as you get a high-quality filter (a multi-coated one from B+W or Hoya would be a good start), you won't be a noticable degradation of image quality. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 03:36:04 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:21:28 AM · #6 |
We keep UV filters on every lens all the time; I've never seen any noticeable quality issues with my pictures (well, aside from the user-generated ones!).
Looking at how filthy the filters get sometimes (sea spray, for example) I'm glad it's a £30 filter covered in salt to get washed off, and not a £300 lens.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 04:24:39 AM · #7 |
Thanks all.
I ordered the Nikon L37C UV for my 60mm micro. Everything I've heard says it's at the top in terms of quality, like the B+W stuff. I think it'll be worth it definitely.
Thanks again |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 08:53:51 AM · #8 |
the effect of your UV filter on image quality really depends on the quality of the filter. if you buy a cheap one for $4, it's probably not gonna be the best idea to put in front of an expensive lense. a good UV filter can go for well over $100. multi-coated, high-quality filters will have little to no effect on your image quality.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:26:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jxpfeer:
the effect of your UV filter on image quality really depends on the quality of the filter. if you buy a cheap one for $4, it's probably not gonna be the best idea to put in front of an expensive lense. a good UV filter can go for well over $100. multi-coated, high-quality filters will have little to no effect on your image quality. |
This is the whole deal right here. Buy a nice high-end Nikkor, and you need to buy a high end filter. Anything less and you may as well have bought a cheap lens. I had a cheap filter on one of my lenses, and definitely noticed more artifacts in some scenarios, and a degradation in sharpenss. I no longer use it.
These days, I keep the lens cap on until I'm ready to fire, and replace it promptly. Much more durable than a filter. Polarizers are a different story though as they change the image. I use them when appropriate, but not as a full time lens cover.
At some point I'll probably get a B&H filter to protect my glass, but I don't see it as a priority at the moment.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:27:44 AM · #10 |
I would never add two lens to air surfaces infront of my lens which drastically increases the chance of reduced contrast & flare. Also the 60mm macro and 50 f1.8D are probably the two worst canidates for adding a UV filter to start with, eleminating the advantage of their recessed front elements.
Ocasionally I do add a skylight filter to reduce distant haze.
If lens protection is the reason use a lens hood. In the twenty years I've been shooting with Nikons in harsh enviroments I've never damaged a front element that a hood couldn't have prevented.
To protect against sea spray, etc. I would suggest the rain covers or underwater housings made my ewa-marine. Although a little expensive they will enable you to shot in conditions you would have never shot in before. Besides the front of your lens is not the only part of your camera system sensitive to the elements (especially with digital). |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:48:43 AM · #11 |
some further info at the Filter connection
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 10:54:11 AM · #12 |
I pretty much always have a filter on the front of my lens. I do a lot of shooting near the ocean and in just 10 minutes time the filter can be covered with salt. The surf puts up a lot of very fine drops in the air and these drift a long way.
I did a far bit of testing with and without the filter and did not see any real difference in the photos.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 11:17:18 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I would never add two lens to air surfaces infront of my lens which drastically increases the chance of reduced contrast & flare. Also the 60mm macro and 50 f1.8D are probably the two worst canidates for adding a UV filter to start with, eleminating the advantage of their recessed front elements.
|
I'm not sure why you think the 60mm micro is a bad candidate for a UV filter. Sure, it's recessed, but when you're actually shooting at macro focus ranges, the front element sticks all the way out... quite close to whatever your shooting, and quite succeptible to dust, dirt, etc.
I've ordered the Nikon L37C which from everything I've read is up there with the very best filters you can buy (b+w etc). I'll probably test some but I realize now it should be fine.
I've noticed, most of the people who say they think you should never use a filter (not even a very expensive nice one) can't offer any scientific reason as to why; they're just being supersticious about it. Whereas people who say its okay to use them often say they have done numerous tests over 30 years etc etc. I guess I'm goin with that opinion for now.
Anyway, thanks for all the replies. |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 11:53:36 AM · #14 |
Here is some very good coverage of the subject.
I use a UV at all times, when no other filter is mounted. There is, of course, a specific use for this filter other than serving as an armour for the lens. In the Northwest, where I roam, we have dramatically varying altitudes and atmospheric conditions.
Shooting an expansive landscape from the high country here, without a UV filter, can result in an odd colour cast, usually adding blue to the already 'unreal' hue of a cedar canopy. The more space/air and moisture stands or drifts between camera and subject, the more pronounced the effect.
I have, in fact, taken shots without UV protection under just such condition and had to return to reshoot similar scenes with a UV filter on. The difference can be quite discernible.
There appears to be a considerable degree of difference between the various brands. B+W, in my experience, produces a stronger reduction than any of several other brands I tried over the years.
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 11:59:27.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 12:37:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Arcy:
I'm not sure why you think the 60mm micro is a bad candidate for a UV filter. Sure, it's recessed, but when you're actually shooting at macro focus ranges, the front element sticks all the way out... quite close to whatever your shooting, and quite succeptible to dust, dirt, etc.
I've ordered the Nikon L37C which from everything I've read is up there with the very best filters you can buy (b+w etc). I'll probably test some but I realize now it should be fine.
I've noticed, most of the people who say they think you should never use a filter (not even a very expensive nice one) can't offer any scientific reason as to why; they're just being supersticious about it. Whereas people who say its okay to use them often say they have done numerous tests over 30 years etc etc. I guess I'm goin with that opinion for now.
Anyway, thanks for all the replies. |
There is no supersticion here it is FACT that adding more glass to air contact in your optical path drastically increases your chance of flare, reduced contrast, etc. And even B&W and other high-end manafacturers usually don't come close to the quality of the optical glass in all but the cheapest lens made by the lens manafacturers.
Also instead of having one surface to clean, you now have three (front element & both sides of the filter). I always laugh when I see a lens on the used market that states that they have had a filter on the lens since new. The expectation is that because of this the front element is in pristine conditon & not dirty. Except for Kaesemann filters, which usually are a couple hundred dollars a piece, all filters are loosly mounted in brass so that expansion with temperatue will not stress the glass. This allows for small particles and abrasives to get behind the glass and contact the front element. These small pieces of material can and do have optical effects on the final image especially in strong lighting conditions.
And if you feel you just can't take your lens off for fear some mysterious object will come flying through the air with the sole purpose of damaging your lens, then there are better alternatives than the UV filter. Nikon I know makes a multicoated optically clear filter. It is the same that they use in their big glass as a blank front. Sure there is sometimes a need for a UV filter (haze, altitude, etc), but only use it when it is needed. You wouldn't use tire chains year round would you? |
|
