How much to spend on UV filters

Curt · Jul 15, 2012

Leigh B said:
If I had a dollar for every old wives' tale about a filter breaking and damaging a lens...

That's certainly a ridiculous reason to avoid using a filter.

If you're that concerned, don't take your lens outdoors in the first place and you won't need to worry.

As to tripods blowing over or missing a lens pouch when you're working... Pay attention to what you're doing.
The lenses were damaged by operator stupidity, not by the presence of a filter.

- Leigh

+1

I had a filter on a d*****l camera and while in Yosemite I was walking up some stone steps when I slipped on the layer of needles. My camera was around my neck and took a swing at the rock side walk. When I took a look through the viewfinder there wasn't any display. I figured it was toast at that point but taking the battery out and then back in it turned on and worked.

But I digress, the filter I had on was crushed at the rim. If I hadn't had a filter on the lens would have been crushed and it would no longer be accepting filters.

If I had put a rubber lens shade on it would have no doubt acted as a bumper. An accident can happen any time, one has to take care in the first place. Walking around with the camera swinging on my neck in the woods wasn't the best idea.

Curt · Jul 15, 2012

For those who are apt to put or make cleaning marks on their lenses. You know like the ads say, "the lens was cleaned with steel wool but it won't affect the pictures". They should use a filter, any filter on their lenses.

bladerunner6 · Jul 15, 2012

tkamiya said:
I think you got a wrong idea.... Anything you put in front of your lens will change something to some degree. There is no such thing as a filter that does not affect your lens performance. The difference is how much and how badly. I put Nikon NC in front of all of my lenses. I find the protection they afford and reduction in optical quality a worth while trade off.

You never told us how large of a filter you need. If you need 52mm diameter filter, a decent quality UV or NC filter starts around $15 and go up from there. Hoya multi-coated kind are in this price range and they are pretty good. Nikon NC (which is my favorite) is $30ish. I will not put anything less than these in front of any lens, unless I'm shooting in a sand storm or something and it needs to be disposable.

Honestly though, if your lens is worth $50 and you are concerned about not impacting optical quality, I really wouldn't put any. If you damage your lens to a degree it's useless, you are out $50. I had several lenses in $100 range before. I didn't put $70 Nikon NC in front of it. It made no sense to me.

Tell us more about what you have.... that'll make it easier for us to give advise.

My lenses are:

Nikon 28-80, 58mm

Tamron 75-300, 62mm

Mark Fisher · Jul 15, 2012

Sorry for the non-responsive answer, but if I had $20 I'd use it for a lens hood and use it all the time. It doesn't help with blowing sand, but that is about it. I have UV filters on a few lenses with very exposed elements, but mostly not. I suspect that a less expensive UV filter plus a lens hood may be better than a high-end UV filter alone both for protection and flare.

tkamiya · Jul 15, 2012

For your lens, Nikon 28-80 and Tamron 75-300, I'd choose between not putting any filters for sake of protection and putting something like these on.

http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Ultravio...e=UTF8&qid=1342362114&sr=1-7&keywords=58mm+uv

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-DG-58mm...e=UTF8&qid=1342362215&sr=1-5&keywords=58mm+uv

I would avoid going the lowest end Tiffen or worse, Sunpak type.

Here's the thing.... I know your lenses were inexpensive, so if you decide you don't want to put anything on them, you aren't taking that much of gamble. But if you do put something on, you have to get at least a half way decent one. But, remember this.... anything you put will affect something to some degree. If you end up shooting in very direct back light condition, you must know enough to take your filters off if you want to minimize the possibility of flare. We all do. None of the filters will block out flares.

Klainmeister · Jul 15, 2012

NB23 said:
I use filters on ALL my lenses. You should see the filters: scratched, dirty, funny patterns in them...

This teached me 2 things: A filter is invaluable if I want to keep (protect) the lens' front element clean (new). Also, there is no degradation to Image quality despite all the scratches. Well, if there is a degradation, my customers never saw any. And that's what counts.

People can complain about the loss of IQ but frankly, if there's a room for improvement in their photography, it has to be in the picture making department, not in the sharpness department.

Yes, exactly.

To ammend my earlier comment: those filters were used on Mamiya 7 lenses (which I hear are quite nice) as well as a Linhof Schneider lens and a Rodenstock. For 35mm, I tried them out on a handful of gems. Once again, never ever have seen any difference between a $15 and my a $90 filter.

bladerunner6 · Jul 15, 2012

tkamiya said:
For your lens, Nikon 28-80 and Tamron 75-300, I'd choose between not putting any filters for sake of protection and putting something like these on.

http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Ultravio...e=UTF8&qid=1342362114&sr=1-7&keywords=58mm+uv

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-DG-58mm...e=UTF8&qid=1342362215&sr=1-5&keywords=58mm+uv

I would avoid going the lowest end Tiffen or worse, Sunpak type.

Here's the thing.... I know your lenses were inexpensive, so if you decide you don't want to put anything on them, you aren't taking that much of gamble. But if you do put something on, you have to get at least a half way decent one. But, remember this.... anything you put will affect something to some degree. If you end up shooting in very direct back light condition, you must know enough to take your filters off if you want to minimize the possibility of flare. We all do. None of the filters will block out flares.

One thing is even though my lenses are inexpensive, I don't want to damage them and have to spend the time and money looking lenses as versus less expensive filters. Finding a lens that fits my budget is a bit harder than finding filters.

tkamiya · Jul 15, 2012

So, I gave you what I would buy if I were in your place and wanted to put filters on them. That's what those links are for.

You really can't have it both ways. Like anything else in photography, it's a compromise. I find those filters reasonably priced and reasonable in quality. I use the Sigma one I recommended on one of my inexpensive lenses, as a matter of fact.... I also like Hoya products and have its products.

jayvo86 · Jul 16, 2012

For the OP:

I just bought a $160 warming UV filter from Singh-Ray.

However,

A: I don't intend to use it for protection.

B: I'm slightly insane.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 16, 2012

bladerunner6 said:
If the optical performance is the same as a less expensive filter, I can not justify spending $50-$60 on a lens that cost less than that or a little more.

So let me clarify, how much does a filter that does not diminish my optics but will protect my lens go for?

Thanks.

How will you judge the optical performance of a filter? You won't. So look around, that filter which costs $50 at B&H is available in pristine shape somewhere for $15 or so. Also, you need filters only on the lenses you are actually using on the camera.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 16, 2012

jayvo86 said:
For the OP:

I just bought a $160 warming UV filter from Singh-Ray.

However,

A: I don't intend to use it for protection.

B: I'm slightly insane.

A: Display on the kitchen table??
B: Maybe not: I have two $340 Kasemann circular polarisers and don't consider it insane. Only Hasselblad filters are more expensive, but not necessarily better in terms of engineering or material quality.

cliveh · Jul 16, 2012

I know a UV filter protects the lens, but as purist I never use one.

Leigh B · Jul 16, 2012

At a laboratory-precision level, any element interposed between the lens and the subject will cause some degradation.
The question is... how much degradation?

With a high-quality filter, it will be much smaller than the resolving power of the film, and thus can be disregarded.

The most important characteristic of a filter from the quality perspective is the glass.
The two surfaces must be absolutely flat and parallel.
If these conditions are not met, you have a prism, not a filter.
We all know what prisms do to light.

Using low-quality or poorly-made glass is the easiest way to save money when making a filter.

- Leigh

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 16, 2012

Leigh B said:
At a laboratory-precision level, any element interposed between the lens and the subject will cause some degradation.
The question is... how much degradation?

With a high-quality filter, it will be much smaller than the resolving power of the film, and thus can be disregarded.

The most important characteristic of a filter from the quality perspective is the glass.
The two surfaces must be absolutely flat and parallel.
If these conditions are not met, you have a prism, not a filter.
We all know what prisms do to light.

Using low-quality or poorly-made glass is the easiest way to save money when making a filter.

- Leigh

So it is assumed you are speaking of planar and/or Schott glass? Some rarer filters have a composition of fluorite (CaF2) -- I have not seen these from Canon (at one time offered for use with high end L-series optics) since around 2002, the expense of manufacturing alone would have made them prohibitive in cost to the masses. Keep in mind that if an image is scanned, that process alone will introduce its own degree of image degradation. So in essence, use/invest in a filter that provides a good degree of protection and an equal amount of optical performance (this is subjective, but as I've said before, you don't put a cheap filter on an expensive lens!).

NB23 · Jul 17, 2012

I noticed there is an insane amount of misinformation flying around.

Just for the record: the image is not focused through the filter. If it was the case, then there would actually be a 3% decrease in image quality, which are measured scientifically while the image is focused ON the filter itself.
But since the image is not focused on the filter, one can safely assume that the loss in image quality goes from 3% to 0.3%.

That's a 0.3% loss in image quality.

And when you understand that the human vision can't detect a 3% difference in a 4MP file (or a 8x10 print of any film you like), then this boils down to pure misinformation when someone says "I don't filters. They degrade the image".

Leigh B · Jul 17, 2012

NB23 said:
I noticed there is an insane amount of misinformation flying around.

Yep. It appears you're trying to increase the amount thereof.

NB23 said:
Just for the record: the image is not focused through the filter.

Interesting statement... NOT.

Could you explain how the light bypasses a filter that's firmly screwed into the front of the lens?

- Leigh

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 17, 2012

^ :confused: There are more twists to this subject than a corkscrew. The above is befuddling.

jm94 · Jul 17, 2012

What is the point in using say a £500 lens with a £3 filter? I like the hoya filters personally and I will use nothing else... I have tried cheap, tacky filters and an increase in grain and slight blurring when enlarged seems to be common place. Leigh is right... the light HAS to pass through the filter... how can it NOT pass through the filter? :/ also a filter will protect your lens, best to loose a £50 filter than a £200 - £1000 lens.

Klainmeister · Jul 17, 2012

Maybe we ought to test this theory. I have 4 shots left on a roll in the Mamiya. I'll put on the 80mm at f/8 on a tripod and shoot a subject with a $15 Hoya and a $90 B+W. Give me some days.

zsas · Jul 17, 2012

^Nice mythbuster! Love these kind of tests!!!

Klainmeister · Jul 17, 2012

I figure I can enlarge them up to 20x24 onto a 5x7 print (I want to optically test). Realized I am outta fixer though, but I definitely will get around to this.

Diapositivo · Jul 17, 2012

I suggest the test is performed in a taxing situation for a filter, a situation where a filter is more likely to create problems, for instance a night picture with light sources (street lamps) in the frame, or a picture with a backlit subject.

There are situations where the difference in quality might not emerge, and other situations where it may show "big time".

Klainmeister · Jul 17, 2012

Ok, we have a ton of contrast and sun here so I figure I could do a backlit subject then my courtyard light at night. Sounds good?

Diapositivo · Jul 17, 2012

Sounds good. As an added suggestion you could first turn the tripod head in order to find the position which maximises the reflections or the flare, then take the test shots. Finding a taxing situation will make it easier to see the difference (if any is found).

E. von Hoegh · Jul 17, 2012

Klainmeister said:
Ok, we have a ton of contrast and sun here so I figure I could do a backlit subject then my courtyard light at night. Sounds good?

To be fair, you should test in two lighting situations. For instance, a Hoya HMC will outperform a single coated or uncoated filter in difficult lighting, but that's a test of the coatings, not the quality of the glass itself. I'd suggest a picture with each filter in which something like a sheet of newsprint is the subject, with a proper lens shade. Then two pictures in difficult, flare-producing conditions, again with the shade.

How much to spend on UV filters

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency