Filters

[PJ S]

Getting straight down to it, what's the difference in UV filters?
Prime example, I'm familiar with Hoya, but perplexed as to what is and when you'd use a UV(0), Skylight 1A, and Skylight 1B
Then there's Pro 1, HMC, Digital, and other packagings, all at different prices, suggesting they perform differently.

Of course, I'm sure the default answer is B&W or Heliopan, if not Light Craft Workshop or Singh Ray.

Usage is landscape/nature.

What if I go with a Cokin-style (budget conscious mode activated) drop-in system, and a range of NDs (graduated and full), can or even would I, stack that over a screw-on CPL/UV filter if the angle included a fair bit of sky rather than tree canopy?

[markmullen]

Essentially the only use for a UV filter in digital photography is as a protection filter. I would only recommend one for really dangerous environments, rallying photography, nightclub work etc, where there is a real danger to your front element.

[PJ S]

I was aware of the idea of leaving it on to act as a protector, but does it not actually provide a benefit against haze?
If it's minimal/can be dealt with in PP, then fair enough.

[markmullen]

PJ S said:

I was aware of the idea of leaving it on to act as a protector, but does it not actually provide a benefit against haze?
If it's minimal/can be dealt with in PP, then fair enough.

None whatsoever. Digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV like film was. A skylight filter would give the tiniest amount of warmth but that is all.

[Simpo Two]

markmullen said:

A skylight filter would give the tiniest amount of warmth but that is all.

Which can be added during processing without needing two extra air/glass interfaces, so yes, no point at all.

[PJ S]

Excellent, one less thing to "worry" about.

[RobDickinson]

IMO 'protection' filters add more risk in general than they remove.

They are typically frail and typically break much easier than the lens on its own would. The thread ring can get stick , the broken glass can scratch the front element etc.

As said a digital sensor is already screened from UV, in particularly strong UV one may be required (or if you shoot a leica m8 where they forgot it...) , otherwise its pointless.

[raredevil]

I agree that certain filters have little use in the post processing digital age. However I think as protection for the lens they are invaluable. I have had a camera with an expensive wide angle lens on it fall from a tripod and the UV filter took the brunt of the impact.

So from my experience they are well worth the money.

[2slo]

If you want a filter for protection of the lens element why not just fit a clear one? What's the point in adding a UV filter to a lens which already has UV coating?

[raredevil]

Yes correction, I meant NC filter.

[GetCarter]

raredevil said:

I agree that certain filters have little use in the post processing digital age. However I think as protection for the lens they are invaluable. I have had a camera with an expensive wide angle lens on it fall from a tripod and the UV filter took the brunt of the impact.

So from my experience they are well worth the money.

Whereas I use a lens hood on all my lenses. All the protection, none of the drawbacks.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 27th November 16:27

[Matt..]

These filters are pointless with digital. They are only useful for protection. I use them with some of my L glass when I need to use the weather sealing (eg rain, near waterfalls, dust, etc...). Not using these type of filters improves the quality...