Re: UV - or not UV?
- From: "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:32:16 GMT
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6cKdnShLI_oDJ2HVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
alex.v.freeman wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:29:36 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm trapped in the middle of an argument involving 'experts' who have
diametrically opposing opinions about whether or not there is any
point in fitting UV filters to a digital camera.
I have long had the habit of fitting a UV filter to all my camera
lenses working on the theory that even if I don't always need to
filter UV I would rather damage a UV filter than the front element of
a lens. I have recently bought a D300 with a couple of Nikon lenses
and wish to fit UV filters to each lens.
Expert 1 tells me (insists) that a UV filter will not be necessary and
all that I want is a Marumi 'Digital High Grade' clear 'Lens Protect'
filter. Expert 2 tells me (insists) that what I need is are Hoya UV
filters.
Leaving out the question of the respective merits of Marumi vs Hoya,
what I would like to know is whether or not a UV filter serves any
purpose on a digital camera? What is the no doubt conflicting advice I
will receive from the members of the news group? :-)
Eric Stevens
The only purpose it serves is to diffract the rays at the edge of your
FOV when
using wider-angle lenses to further exacerbate chromatic aberration and
image
softness, as well as providing two more air-to-glass surfaces which rob
your
image of contrast and light, by as much as 8% for each air/glass
transition,
coating-quality dependent of course.
Contrary to popular urban-legend opinion, unless your front lens element
is
flush with the front of your lens barrel, then you are risking even
greater
damage from the breakage of a filter than you would due to any impact to
the
lens barrel itself. When the front lens is somewhat recessed, the lens
barrel's
rim will absorb most damaging impacts. If you have a "protective" filter
exposed
as your front surface, when that is broken from an impact the shards of
harder-than-lens glass will be forcibly thrown into the more recessed
camera
lens. Furthering your chances of greater damage than would occur if the
recessed
lens was bare.
Another side-effect is that because you, erroneously, think that your
lens is
now always "safe", you will be less likely to subconsciously protect your
camera
and lens at all times. Further opening up yourself for more chances of
unintended damage to lens and camera. A bit like those who irresponsibly
live by
insurance. They don't care what happens to their possessions or how they
use
them, or what damage they cause around them, someone else will always pay
for
their irresponsible behavior. Why should they care. You will carry an egg
much
more carefully if you know it will break and if its breakage would be a
detriment to you and you alone.
Unless you must protect your camera's lens from salt-spray, blowing sands
(as on
a beach or desert area), or other harsh environments, then you are best
advised
to leave off any "protective" filter which may cause greater damage
should it
break. Less chance of damage + greater image quality. A "protective" UV
or
Daylight filter is usually a loss-loss situation. Paranoid
first-time-buyer
fools started this illogical urban-legend fad on the internet and others
blindly
followed. It looks, and looked, good on paper and in the minds of those
with
little to no real-life experience with cameras and lenses, but the
concept falls
flat on its face in the light of basic human behavior with real-world
situations. A scenario unfamiliar to the vast majority of the terminal
netizens
who perpetuate these fallacious myths.
Quite a nice treatise, Alex, but I submit that the "legend" started with
sales folk at cut rate camera stores. I was naive when I bought my first
SLR shortly after the ice receded, and after buying a good camera and lens
at a good price, I readily "protected" my investment by paying only $60
for a filter that they paid $6.00 for... at the 'helpful' suggestion of
the sales droid.
I do have a nice polarizer for my 70-200; it cost as much as my first
camera!
--
john mcwilliams
Now that sounds familiar...
When I bought my first decent camera, a Canon AE-1, I followed the sales
rep's suggestion and put a UV filter on each lens. Then, I was always
pissed off that the pics were not what I thought I had paid for -- having a
washed out, much less than vivid appearance.
After starting a new job on a local newspaper and chatting with on-staff
photographers, they simply said, "Ditch the UV filter." I did, and my pics
instantly improved.
I haven't used UVs since than, except when I travel through some of the
higher regions of the Canadian Rocky Mountains.
Take Care,
Dudley
.
- References:
- UV - or not UV?
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: UV - or not UV?
- From: alex . v . freeman
- Re: UV - or not UV?
- From: John McWilliams
- UV - or not UV?
- Prev by Date: Re: Stop with the political BS!
- Next by Date: Re: UV - or not UV?
- Previous by thread: Re: UV - or not UV?
- Next by thread: Re: UV - or not UV?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
