| Photography Forum: Photography Help Forum: |
 |
Q. UV filter...
Asked by Mervo
(K=8643) on 8/7/2005
|
Hello all,
I went to my local photography shop yesterday wanting to buy a petal lense cover so that I limit the chance of bashing the lense on something, and the lady who works there advised me to buy a UV filter instead, because it will protect the lense better.
Is this correct? I did buy the UV filter, and having returned from a friends wedding yesterday notice that all of my shots are underexposed?? Am I going to have to increase exposure compensation because of this new filter, or am I better removing it? It's a Sigma EX filter and my lense is a canon 28-135 3,5-5,6 USM IS and the camera is a 20D.
Regards :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 8/7/2005
|
Opinions are divided on the issue of whether to use a protective filter or not, and there is no simple answer. One thing is for sure: a UV filter should not cause any significant change in exposure. Even if it did, your camera's TTL metering would compensate.
Both UV and 'Skylight' filters are used for lens protection. Skylight filters usually have a very faint (barely perceptible) salmon pink colour.
When I started I received the same advice as you, and I followed it. I bought a Skylight filter for every lens. In time, my experience told me (ie the experience of the situations in which I was shooting) that most of the time a lens hood was a better choice than a filter for protection but that there were some situations (eg mountaineering, sailing and ski-ing) when I should keep the filter on for protection. The filter is useful as a filter in those situations anyway, to cut down UV.
A lens hood protects the front of the lens from dings, and does useful work cutting down stray light. A filter may cause some slight degradation of the image in some situations, and noticeable degradation in others. A lot of the time it will probably have no noticeable effect one way or the other.
So here are my recommendations:
always use a lens hood,
start out by using a protective filter, and build up your own experience of when it is necessary and when it is not, and
even if you decide not to use a protective filter, at least have one available should an unusual situation occur.
Best,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Wez
(K=14339) - Comment Date 8/8/2005
|
Ive never had any exposure problems with a UV filter. I have a skylight filter or UV filter on my lens at all times, as it doesnt affect the exposure settings.
A lens hood (petal lens cover) will not protect the glass element on your lens so the lady in the shop was in fact correct. Its still a good investment though. You should have one for all your lenses.
|
|
|
|
Mervo
(K=8643) - Comment Date 8/10/2005
|
Right, thankyou all for your comments, and I have kept the UV filter on.
I realised too, (I think) that when I was shooting the other day, I was adjusting the flash compensation +- and not exposure compensation which needed to be adjusted with the 20D's wheel - does anyone with a 20D know if I am right?
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 8/10/2005
|
Mervo:
The skylight will tint your photos toward yellow or orange. I prefer the UV filter, and leave it on all the time. Apart from that, I also leave the petal hood on at all times as extra protection. Finally, the lens cap is always on when traveling.
|
|
|
|
Mervo
(K=8643) - Comment Date 8/16/2005
|
thanks, I have just purchased another UV filter for my new lens, just ordered the bigma 50-500 :X
|
|
|
|
Dave Holland
(K=13074) - Comment Date 8/17/2005
|
Well, in the past I have bought UV filters. However I must say that most of the time they live with my other filters in the bottom of my camera bag. I usually use a polarizer, and occasionally use a square ND grad filter, so the UV filter ends up being extra baggage. Not worth the extra effort.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/17/2005
|
When you buy a filter, buy the most expensive one you can get!
A poor quality filter on an expensive lens is a disgrace, it seriously degrades the optical quality of the system to the point where that 1000 pound 50-500 is no better than a 100 pound 28-300 hyperzoom.
I use B+W MRC line filters and Nikon filters exclusively for that reason, after having learned my lesson with cheap Marumi and other no-name brands.
Easy test that did it for me: shoot a high detail scene with and without the filter in different light conditions and check on a maximum size scan or print from a quality scanner/lab. The difference is huge (on a small print from the local farmacy or supermarket you probably hardly notice it which is why those hyperzooms sell so well).
|
|
|
|
|
