UV filters

[simpo two]

Up until now I've always kept UV filters on my lenses for protection and to ward off accidental fingerprints.

I now have a very pricey chunk of 77mm diameter glass in the front of my 17-55 f2.8, and it's quite close to the front so gets little mechanical protection.

Thing is - how much difference is there between 'normal' UV filters (eg standard Hoya) and expensive ones? Will I really notice any difference in normal use?

[Mr Noble]

I doubt you'll get a response to that John as YOU are normally the persion that WE would ask for such advice.




Would you like me to post a similar question, then you can tell me, and at the same time, answer your own question.





Seriously though, I doubt if Hoya would produce a product that was poor at doing something so simple. The differences would be so minute that you could never tell them apart. IMO

Greg

[406tm]

John

Despite what people say, all the filters are made from optical glass so there should not really be much to choose between them. I have a 77mm on the front of my 24-120 VR.

[simpo two]

Mr Noble said:

I doubt you'll get a response to that John as YOU are normally the persion that WE would ask for such advice. Would you like me to post a similar question, then you can tell me, and at the same time, answer your own question.

I have my views, but I'm always open to others. Then I'll decide whether to ignore them or not!

[ehasler]

From memory, the more expensive (Pro-1) filters are thinner so cause less vignetting, and also have a better coating on, so they let through more light and reduce the amount of flare you get.

Then again, you can always take them off and use a lens hood as protection instead

If you want to try one, I've a 77 filter that I'm planning on flogging on ebay soon, so let me know if you'd like to see how it fits.

[HankScorpio]

406tm said:

I have a 77mm on the front of my 24-120 VR.

My 24-120VR is 72mm, are you using step up rings?
If do, what type as I was thinking about getting some 77mm filters and using rings with them for the 72mm lens (2 x 77mm lenses and one 72mm)

[406tm]

HankScorpio said:

406tm said: I have a 77mm on the front of my 24-120 VR. My 24-120VR is 72mm, are you using step up rings? If do, what type as I was thinking about getting some 77mm filters and using rings with them for the 72mm lens (2 x 77mm lenses and one 72mm)

Bugger your right, the 24-120VR is 72mm. It's the 80-400VR that's 77mm. I have a UV on that also.

Dave

406tm

[poah]

thick uncoated or single coated ones reduce contrast and increase flare and possible decrease of sharpness

[Bacardi]

simpo two said:

I have my views, but I'm always open to others. Then I'll decide whether to ignore them or not!

I bet you'll ignore this one

simpo two said:

Up until now I've always kept UV filters on my lenses for protection and to ward off accidental fingerprints. Thing is - how much difference is there between 'normal' UV filters (eg standard Hoya) and expensive ones? Will I really notice any difference in normal use?

So now you have a nice lens, bought at great expense for superior image quality, designed to work perfectly at great expense by Nikon, and you want to modify it by sticking some extra glass on it... why?

The coatings on the front element are extremely tough, wiping a finger print off won't hurt it. Better still, don't put one on in the first place .

I really don't get this old chestnut of 'lens protection'. Unless you have the habit of scraping your front element along brick walls (in which case a lens hood would help), or shoot in sandstorms or actually want to cut down UV light at the north pole, putting a UV filter on defeats the object of better image quality.

poah said:

thick uncoated or single coated ones reduce contrast and increase flare and possible decrease of sharpness

All filters have this possibility.

Sure, accidents can happen but just be careful. Presumably every time you reach for a sharp knife you don't wear chain mail gloves, in case you cut yourself? Or take Night Nurse every night, just in case you have a cold. If you want best image quality take'em off. If you're really worried about damage, add the gear to your household policy for not very much..

[LongQ]

Think I posted this reference last year some time but it seems to have more relevance to this thread.

www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Ignore the title and read the first few paragraphs then decide whether to read the rest.

Now, where's my Rainex ....

[simpo two]

Bacardi said:

I bet you'll ignore this one

Actually I'm inclined to agree with you; I'm probably thinking back to the times when if you tried to wipe a multicoating it would rub off.

So, will you buy me a new one if I prang the front?

[elderly]

simpo two said:

I now have a very pricey chunk of 77mm diameter glass in the front of my 17-55 f2.8, and it's quite close to the front so gets little mechanical protection.

Do I gather from that comment that you don't use a lens hood ?

I don't use filters for protection any more but surely there is a much
larger image quality loss from unwanted light reaching the front element than from the use of a filter.

[simpo two]

elderly said:

Do I gather from that comment that you don't use a lens hood ? I don't use filters for protection any more but surely there is a much larger image quality loss from unwanted light reaching the front element than from the use of a filter.

True indeed, yes I do nearly always use a lens hood, and the one with the 17-55 is a particularly impressive specimen useful for beating off small children.

[LongQ]

simpo two said:

... and the one with the 17-55 is a particularly impressive specimen useful for beating off small children.

If picked up by a nanny bot search device that could be very badly misconstrued I fear.

However, the sentiment is clear when in context and fully understood.

[Bacardi]

simpo two said:

Bacardi said: I bet you'll ignore this one Actually I'm inclined to agree with you; I'm probably thinking back to the times when if you tried to wipe a multicoating it would rub off.

Blimey! Yes, 70's lens coatings (think Italian rustproofing) weren't as good as todays.

simpo two said:

So, will you buy me a new one if I prang the front?

No, just drive carefully and think of all the money you've saved on a filter .

LongQ said:

simpo two said: ... and the one with the 17-55 is a particularly impressive specimen useful for beating off small children. If picked up by a nanny bot search device that could be very badly misconstrued I fear. However, the sentiment is clear when in context and fully understood.