| Author |
Message Text |
|
kanoes
|
My thinking was to protect the lens. I already got buttheads feedback about that, which was interesting. curious what your thoughts are.
|
|
redoleary
|
I personally am not a fan. If you spent good money on one and got like a B+W or some other high quality filter then it shouldn't hurt otherwise you're just putting crap glass in front of good glass (your lens). OTOH, if you have a bridge camera then the whole camera is junk if you wreck the lens, unlike an SLR where you'd just be out a lens, not a lens and camera. Another drawback is that if you wish to use a polarizer then the polarizer is going to stick out that much further and could cause vignetting.
|
|
KerryG
|
If you're going to use a UV filter make sure it is good quality otherwise, as redoleary says, you're just putting crap glass in front of a quality lens. I bought a good one from B+W which I keep on my fz 200 simply because I don't want to risk scratching the lens since that would mean the end of the camera. But you also have to remember that under certain circumstances the UV lens must be removed. For example, if you're shooting the moon or night sky, the UV filter will create reflections and distortions. Now that I have one I use it but I don't think I'd bother again. Assuming you are keeping the lens hood on (which you should except for super close ups) the lens is well protected anyway.
|
|
rtbaum
|
The first lens that I bought, I fitted with an UV filter. When I developed butter fingers at security for the Smithsonian and dropped the lens, the filter took the brunt of the fall and saved the lens.
That being said, I haven't used one since as I see little utility at present as I tend to use either a CPL for greater utility or the hood to shade the lens, making an UV superfluous.
|
|
kanoes
|
What I have is a promaster UV digital HD filter.
Is it crap? (It has positive reviews on the interwebs)
|
|
Ausable
|
quote kanoes: "What I have is a promaster UV digital HD filter. Is it crap? (It has positive reviews on the interwebs)"
I'm not familiar with that brand, but that is not to say that the filter is bad. Some photographers prefer not to keep a relatively cheap (hence the pejorative) filter on an expensive lens all the time because it may degrade the image. The practical way to evaluate the filter is to compare pictures captured with and without the filter. My personal preference has shifted from always using a good-quality UV filter to just using the filter in situations where it can enhance the image.
|
|
kanoes
|
quote Ausable: "quote kanoes: "What I have is a promaster UV digital HD filter. Is it crap? (It has positive reviews on the interwebs)"
The practical way to evaluate the filter is to compare pictures captured with and without the filter."
Never thought of that, thanks.
|
|
rtbaum
|
There is nothing intrinsically bad about the promaster filter. The benefits from the filter are very slight optically. I just figure that the lens hood or the CPL are a better option. One situation where I would want use one is in dusty conditions or around salt water. Always use lens caps when transporting or storing the camera.
|