Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by 1200mk, Feb 21, 2007.
I don't but maybe I should start.
Yes, lens protection FTW
no, more flare ftl.
yes, lens protection
I use the hood also 95% of the time
i have a UV filter on all of my lenses. extra flare doesnt bother me because i cant think of a single picture that i like that has any lens flare in it. so why does it matter?
Why are opinions on this so mixed? I was going to buy one and people are telilng me most of them are junk unless I want to spend a lot of money on a good one
Yes. That way I still have a nice, unscratched lens at the end of the day
gregfarz, what lens will you be using it on? on my 1600 dollar 70-200 i'm using a 50 dollar B&W UV filter. on the rest of my lenses i am using a cheap hoya filter than you can find on ebay for 20 bucks shipped.
I've read a bunch of comparisons between different filters.
A guy compared a $10 S&W UV filter from ebay vs. a $100 UV filter and there was no difference in image quality.
However, the canon UV filters are complete shit. That seems to be the only exception.
Personally I like to use them now and again, but I mainly use the hood. Plus the front element is stratch resistant.
I have one on my Sigma 24 - 60 f2.8
Right now I only have the kit lens 18-55mm that came with my canon xt...$25-50 isnt bad for a uv filter I'll pick one up just didnt know which brand was good or junk
Not worth it for the kit lens.
Always. Its allot esasier to replace a 20 dolalr fillter than it is to replace a 1400 dollar lens .
Absolutely not unless you are in a sand storm.
Spend all that money on a lens and waste your image quality with another piece of glass right in front of it to worry about. The hood provides more than adequate protection.
^^ It plays no role in picture quality. AT ALL. Belive me ..I've tested a hundred of them on serveral L glass lenses and theres is no downside to it. Its a good idea no matter what .
No sense arguing...it is 2 more surfaces you have to worry about. That alone is what I'm saying.
I do and I will place money on the fact that 9 out of 10 times you shoot, you wouldn't tell the difference between a shot with UV and one without.
and even if the front element is scratch resistant, it isn't rock resistant. shooting cars on a track where rocks fly constantly will cause a crack or scratch in your lens, guaranteed.
This is & has always been a never ending debate just like the debate between which is better Nikon vs Canon
It's more of an issue when you shoot at night, with more point sources of light that will reflect and refract light. During the day, sure, you'll probably not notice, but there are some pretty hideous images out there that were taken at night with some so-called "great" filters. Reflections are inherent to any air-glass surfaces.
Lets say for a second that UV filters actually DO lower your cameras image quality. There is that ONE shot that you must get otherwise you are fucked, and the UV filter makes it almost impossible to get it. Take the damned thing off then! The 99.9999 percent that you keep it on, it may protect your very expensive lens from damage, and the .00001 percent of the time that it is a piece of shit then you take it off.
nobel peace prize, plz.
1DMKIII > *.nikon
Oh shit you're right!!! The never ending debate has finally come to an end!!!!!!
Error: Does not conform with DOS 8.3 naming convention. Computer asplode.