Digital SLR and Filters

Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:57 pm

Saw an ad in Popular Photography for Hoya Pro1 Digital Filters. Says they are multi-coated filters and I was wondering if anyone has used them with a dSLR. I searched through the forums and haven't found anything here except that you really don't need lens filters with dSLRs. Well, that you don't really need UV filters. Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!!

Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 40

I don't know technical pros and cons. But will say that I use UV filters on all my digital lens for the old fashion purpose of simply protecting the lens.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

UV filters are a waste of money on a dSLR, and even if it's just for protection anything you put in front of your lens will cause a little bit of light scatter and thereby degrade your capture a little bit.

The filter you absolutely need is a polarizing filter, and just below that would be a neutral density and a graduated neutral density filter.

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:06 am

TradClimber wrote:

I searched through the forums and haven't found anything here except that you really don't need lens filters with dSLRs.

Thats completely not true. Digital processing (ie adding filter effects afterwards) can not compare to the use of the correct filter during shooting. People should not be so dependant on PS that they don't bother considering use of filters when taking photographs.

drpablo74 wrote:

UV filters are a waste of money on a dSLR, and even if it's just for protection anything you put in front of your lens will cause a little bit of light scatter and thereby degrade your capture a little bit.

I also disagree with this statement. The quality degredation from using a HIGH QUALITY UV filter will be negligable compared to the added security. What good is your awesome quality glass with a big scratch on the front element?

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

That's why I don't let my lenses get scratched.

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:10 am

Please inform us how you manage to make yourself 100% accident proof?

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:16 am

sparky wrote:

Please inform us how you manage to make yourself 100% accident proof?

Common sense, lens hoods, and a high quality tripod go along way for me. Are you saying that UV filters make your lens 100% safe Sparky?

Filters do provide needed effects in certain shooting and cannot be replicated nearly as well in editing after the fact IMO. I don't believe anyone was disputing that. UV filters are useless on digitial cameras for their orginal stated purpose. That is to remove the blue cast that is created when film is subjected to high amounts of uv radiation. Digital sensors are not sensitive to uv radiation like film is. As for the ad in POP Photo, it is just a marketing campaign to try and get you to buy their products.

I use polarizers, & ND filters most commonly and utilize the Cokin "P" system holder on both digital and film bodies.

Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 147 Location: Watertown, NY

drpablo74 wrote:

UV filters are a waste of money on a dSLR, and even if it's just for protection anything you put in front of your lens will cause a little bit of light scatter and thereby degrade your capture a little bit.

I agree in most instances, as I usually don't use one, but sometimes using a UV filter can be handy in harsh enviroments. Besides its easier to clean also.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I keep my lens cap on 100% of the time when I'm not shooting, and I clean my lens with an air blower. When I'm adjusting the lens manually my fingers aren't near the glass. Between that and use of a lens hood most of the time, I can't see how my lens can get scratched unless a projectile comes straight at it.

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:31 am

I am with Paul on this one, and I also use lens hoods to help keep things away from the glass.

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:27 am

Yeah, lense hoods and keeping a cap on work great, until the unexpected happens. I was composing a shot recently of some waterfowl near some tall weeds. The wind was blowing and before I knew it had smacked one of the weeds into the lens hood of my 18-70 mm lens. I didn't think anything of it until I looked through the viewfinder and realized that the weed had deposited some kind of sticky pollen all over the from of the lens, including on the optics themselves. I removed the lens hood and replaced the filter in about 30 seconds, enabling me to keep shooting. Cleaning up the pollen and sap covered filter took the better part of 20 minutes and a liberal application of soap and water (using lens cleaning solution just smeared things around).

Did the filter save my lens? No, probably not. However, it did allow me to recover from a situation and continue using the same lens with little break in shooting. It also made clean-up much, much easier (have you ever tried soaking a lens in soapy water - not recommended!!).

Randy

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:13 pm

oooooo.......good debates.....however the main reason for not using a UV filter was not mentioned.

Lens Flare is the main culprit. "Scattering of light" does not quite do it. Lens flare is a problem caused by light moving though transitions between air and glass. Adding a piece of so-so glass (when compared to precision ground lens elements) just adds another possibility for problems. Yes, protection.........but I would only use it when the problem can present itself. If not........keep the UV off the lens. In short, if I am going to get the camera into the weeds near a lake I would consider using the filter.

As for not using filters?!?!?!?!? THIS IS INSANE. You should always strive to take the photo correctly. Do not assume you can correct after the fact. You results will not be the same. Circular Polarizers and ND filters are a must. Perhaps you might be able to live without color correcting filters (this is what the WB setting on your camera does) but do not rely on post processing (of JPGs and TIFFs) for this. RAW images are the only exception since WB settings are not applied until the conversion is made.

Bottom line........if you can choose (money permitting) to shoot it with a filter or to post process in PS......choose the filter.

Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 19 Location: England

never heard such rubbish- there is no way that you can avoid scratches and muck flying up - unless you take your photographs in a sterile environment - and then they wouldnt be very exciting would they.
try taking sports action photographs without some sort of filter to protect the lens - last year I was taking a pic- 20 yards away from the race track and a stray stone/flint or something flew all the way and hit my filter- cracked it- far cheaper than a lens!

Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 247 Location: England

I have always used a UV filter to protect the lens. Since decent multi coated lens came in, UV filters have not really been useful from a photographic viewpoint anyway.

For sure the more things the light has to pass through before it gets to the film/sensor, the more it will be degraded. But I don't think the degredation caused by a UV filter is going to be a problem for any pictures I'm likely to take.

For those that use their lenses 'naked' and unprotected, if you can really see the difference in image quality, hats off to you and good luck I hope you never have the misfortune to bugger up a really decent lens.

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:31 pm

drpablo74 wrote:

I keep my lens cap on 100% of the time when I'm not shooting, and I clean my lens with an air blower. When I'm adjusting the lens manually my fingers aren't near the glass. Between that and use of a lens hood most of the time, I can't see how my lens can get scratched unless a projectile comes straight at it.

Actually a polarizing filter once saved my lens from probable destruction. I dropped it, front element first (inside a little lens carry bag, no less), only about 1 to 1.5 meters (3 or 4 feet). The lens cap got pushed in, and the polarizer was shattered. There was not a mark on the front lens element, but I suspect without the polarizer the same accident would have shattered it instead.

That said, I still don't buy UV filters, since I don't really care about them. But I don't think they "degrade image quality" unless they suffer from flare, which can be solved with a lens hood anyway. I think this for the same reason that small marks or dust on the front of your lens is pretty much unimportant, except insofar as they also contribute to lens flare issues in direct lighting.

Oops, luisv already said that. I agree.