UV Filter

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

E

eaglenws

Member
Member's gallery
My Nikon 180-600mm lens has arrived and so far I’m loving it. My question has to do with using a UV filter as protection for the front element. I currently use Urth filters for my other lenses, but I am not tied to Urth. Are Urth Plus filters quality filters, or am I better off getting a different brand (without breaking the bank).

Thank you in advance.
 
Member's gallery
You'll find a lot of opinions on this subject both for or against a UV filter. My personal opinion is they aren't useful at all but if you want a filter get one that is clear and the highest quality you can afford. No sense in putting a single coated or non-coated filter with color casts in front of an expensive lens.
 
Member's gallery
eaglenws said:
My Nikon 180-600mm lens has arrived and so far I’m loving it. My question has to do with using a UV filter as protection for the front element. I currently use Urth filters for my other lenses, but I am not tied to Urth. Are Urth Plus filters quality filters, or am I better off getting a different brand (without breaking the bank).

Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
I use Nikon neutral clear protective filters on most of my lenses. However, others have strongly held opinions on this topic. If you’re going to use protective filters get the highest quality affordable because you’re putting another piece of glass between your lens and the scene you’re photographing.

Steve has a video about this question.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
I'd only use a filter as a protective element if you're going to be dealing with heavily blowing sand or water sprays.

Beyond that, I've never used one and left it on the lens.
Click to expand...
What Cameron said…I have UV in the kit…but only use it in salty/dusty conditions…because no matter how much you paid for the filter it is still far lower quality than the glass in the lens…and Steve’s video showed that the filter provides essentially zero protection from impact.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
What Cameron said…I have UV in the kit…but only use it in salty/dusty conditions…because no matter how much you paid for the filter it is still far lower quality than the glass in the lens…and Steve’s video showed that the filter provides essentially zero protection from impact.
Click to expand...

Not agree on the statement that the filter is a far lower piece of glass as that from the lens. I buy from Hoya, see the above post, and do not see any quality difference in either a controlled environment or in the field (hide photography for instance). I will not put a USD30 filter on a USD3,000 lens of course but hoya has a serious reputation to uphold when it comes to quality.
FWIW:

HOYA | HD nano Mk II UV

hoyafilter.com hoyafilter.com
 
It's not so much how high quality the filter is as it is another layer of glass. How I get it is anytime light encounters a change from air to glass back to air, some amount of refraction will happen. It seems not much of an issue except when glare might be happening that the lens hood doesn't block. I don't think it's a deal breaker most of the time either do or don't according to personal preference.
 
Member's gallery
Most of the time, using a good lens hood is more effective protection for the front element of the lens than is a UV filter. I stopped using clear protective filters a long time ago, especially after watching Steve's video posted above. The only time I might put a protective clear filter on a lens is if I'm in windy, sandy, conditions such as photographing non a beach.
 
Member's gallery
There is a lot I don't understand about protective filters. Why do they have to be the highest quality? I sometimes shoot through window glass and it is fine. Why are protective filters so expensive? A filter can approach the cost of a lens with six precision-made lens elements. Is a filter harder to make than a lens element?

Most of the time a clear filter doesn't noticeably affect image quality. But sometimes it does, usually by creating flare from a bright light, such as the setting sun or street lights at night.

Filters don't protect much from impact but can protect from fingerprints, blowing debris, and brush in the woods. If those hazards are not likely, and usually they are not, then I don't use a filter.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
The cheaper the filter, the less light it allows through and the more likely it is to reduce image quality. Shooting through windows often reduces quality as well.
Click to expand...
My perception is that protective filter use is based on beliefs. When we discuss practices based on beliefs, things can get messy fast, and we don't learn what we should.

I really crave facts over unsupported opinion.

So far, the best I have found is Roger Cicala's blog. It is a few years old now but it is useful. His findings are basically that light transmission by most filters is excellent, and that image distortion is low for filters costing $20 - $156 (2017 values). There were a few low quality filters in his selection, filters that he would not want to use. Hopefully the filter manufacturers have sorted their quality issues by now, but there is no guarantee of that.

So it is possible to make an excellent clear filter for $20 (2017 dollars).

There are lots of opinionated blogs on filter use online but they don't use proper test methods or don't have any data at all.

I wouldn't recommend shooting through window glass unless a Northern Parula appears in your back yard while you are having breakfast. But if that happens, go for it!
 
Member's gallery
See also these threads:

Using a UV filter or not on and S lens?

I have a UV clear filter on all of my glass except two the 14-24 S and a 20mm f mount lens. All of my other lenses have the UV glass. After reading the benefits of the Fluorine Coating and watching the video I'm wondering if I am hurting myself using the filter. My biggest issue if with...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

Steve Perry - UV Filters

Question: Do you use UV filters on your lens?
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
I used a protective filter on safari in South Africa a few weeks ago. Glad I did, so much dirt and sand! I also do a few expedition cruises each year- those where one goes out in zodiacs. Filters are a must - both polarising and for protection from the salt water. Cleaning and drying post trip is a must too.
On the z189-600 I use Nikon NC filter. The previous one fell apart and the manufacturer said, despite their lifetime guarantee, that it was “normal west and tear” so the g’tee did not apply. lol
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
What Cameron said…I have UV in the kit…but only use it in salty/dusty conditions…because no matter how much you paid for the filter it is still far lower quality than the glass in the lens…and Steve’s video showed that the filter provides essentially zero protection from impact.
Click to expand...

I always used to use skylight 1b in the film days and UV with digital. Then one day I just stopped. Can't remember how long ago now.

I saw Steve's video too and one from Mike Browne where he attacked the front element of a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 with a metal fork that caused absolutely no damage.
 
Member's gallery
eaglenws said:
I currently use Urth filters for my other lenses, but I am not tied to Urth.
Click to expand...
There can be a lot more to buying filters than the label on the box.

SUGGESTION - put one of your UV filters on a sheet of white paper in daylight and see if the colour of the light through the filter changes from that of the white paper.
If it does you are reducing the colour that can be recorded by the camera when using the filter.
As with altering colour in a JPEG file rather than a RAW file, once removed the colour "correction" cannot be put back without removing information from the JPEG file - not a good idea if you want the widest colour gamut in your images :unsure:

Nikon NC, Hoya Protector, Canon Protect etc are neutral in colour - and IMO are what you might consider buying for use in harsh conditions.

As digital sensors are shiny like a mirror and filter multi coating only works efficiently very close to parallel to the filter surface if there is a bright highlight in the subject area it can reflect off the sensor, then a second time off the back of the filter resulting in a double highlight image.
There can be sensible times to consider not using a filter even for those who prefer to use a filter all the time.

Some cheaper filters are plastic - and distinctly reduce resolution :mad:

I recall tests about than 30 years ago in the long gone Pop Photo that with longer focal lengths the filter surface had to be extremely flat (implied high price) and held exactly parallel to the (then) film plane to retain high image quality.

The hood for the 180-600 offers about 3.5 inches of forward protection - and you are looking at a lower price filter brand on a long focal length lens.
Using the quality improving device that comes with the lens (the lens hood) makes much more sense to me than a filter.

When not using a hood none image forming light can reach the front element at an oblique angle - where filter and lens multi coating is not very effective - reducing image contrast with an apparent loss of sharpness.
Nikon Nano and Arneo coating handle unwanted flare light getting inside a lens to a good standard.
The 180-600 at its price point has neither "extra" coating.
I consider using the long 180-600 hood provided all the time to be good practice.

Going back in history probably 60 years, strong UV light when present could particularly degrade B&W film. Several modern glass types not transmitting UV, the cement used to join elements together into groups not transmitting UV, colour film becoming immune to UV in the 1980's, B&W becoming immune in the 1990's and digital sensors incorporating UV filtration make a clear filter a much better choice than a UV for protection in harsh shooting conditions.

Digressing; insurance for your lens including damage other than the front element and theft could cost as little as $35 a year. Getting a high quality flat 95mm front filter for use at 600mm and change out of $100 might not be easy.
 
Member's gallery
Depends on the lense: exposed, large front element, yes, I tend to use an UV filter as protection (I use Hoya, but anything high quality will do I guess). Otherwise, no, I don't. Quite often the lense hood provides decent protection already. I am not very carefull with my gear at times, so it took one scratch for me on a mint Ai-s lense to slap a filter on it.

Some lenses don't like them so, if I see optical impacts the filter goes away.

Shorter answer: it depends.
 
Member's gallery
A couple writeups worth revisiting:

www.lensrentals.com

How Front Element Scratches Affect Your Images

We have a lot of gear in our inventory, which means we also have a lot of broken gear in the middle of repairs. When it comes to lenses, one thing we see a lot in the repair department is front element scratches. And that makes sense, when a lens is mounted, it's the single [...]
www.lensrentals.com


When you read those you’ll probably have a different view of the “impact” (pun intended) of lens element problems and filters.
 
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
I always used to use skylight 1b in the film days and UV with digital. Then one day I just stopped. Can't remember how long ago now.

I saw Steve's video too and one from Mike Browne where he attacked the front element of a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 with a metal fork that caused absolutely no damage.
Click to expand...
Yep…anything that will damage the front element of the lens will trash the filter as well and in fact the sharp remnants of the filter are more likely to scratch the coating than say a branch or something I would think.
 
Member's gallery
Vincent_VdB said:
Not agree on the statement that the filter is a far lower piece of glass as that from the lens. I buy from Hoya, see the above post, and do not see any quality difference in either a controlled environment or in the field (hide photography for instance). I will not put a USD30 filter on a USD3,000 lens of course but hoya has a serious reputation to uphold when it comes to quality.
FWIW:

HOYA | HD nano Mk II UV

hoyafilter.com hoyafilter.com
Click to expand...
it is true that more expensive filters are better quality than cheap ones…but even a Hoya I think probably pales in comparison to the quality of the glass in the lens., And the lens is designed with the number of elements it has in it to maximize quality…and adding a filter is essentially adding another element to the lens that the optical design software didn't take into account. I put one on if there's salt spray or blowing sand but otherwise just use the lens hood and I keep the cap on the lens if I'm not actively shooting. Nothing wrong with either approach probably…but as Steve's long ago video showed…the front element is almost always stronger than the filter is.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
it is true that more expensive filters are better quality than cheap ones…
Click to expand...
More expensive filters do tend to be better, but price is not always a reliable guide, according to Roger Cicala's data. My chart below summarizes his findings. A high quality filter preferably has high light transmission (99% or more) and good optical qualities.

Transmission and quality chart.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top