Filters

bob5820

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
I've got a body and some glass on the way but neglected to order any filters. My intial thought was to learn to shoot without filters to get a truer image. But I guess I was overlooking the fact that filters also protect the lens. I'll be doing mostly outdoor photography, mainly dogs playing in an often muddy park. Given that would I be best off with UV or polarizing filters.
 

Over Achiever

macrumors 68000
I've got a body and some glass on the way but neglected to order any filters. My intial thought was to learn to shoot without filters to get a truer image. But I guess I was overlooking the fact that filters also protect the lens. I'll be doing mostly outdoor photography, mainly dogs playing in an often muddy park. Given that would I be best off with UV or polarizing filters.
The UV filter is best for protecting the lens and removing haze, while the circular polarizing filter is best for removing glare, decreasing sky brightness, and eliminating reflections in glass or water. If you had to choose one, I'd get the polarizing filter, but I think most photographers get both. I plan on getting both for my S6000.

-OA
 

ChrisBrightwell

macrumors 68020
Apr 5, 2004
2,294
0
Huntsville, AL
Given that would I be best off with UV or polarizing filters.
UV for protection is a waste, IMO. It's taking a really cheap piece of glass and throwing it in front of nice, expensive, optical glass.

Circular polarizers are a must, esp. for outdoors in bright sunlight, but UV is a waste. IMO.
 

Forced Perfect

macrumors 6502
Jul 2, 2004
281
0
Toronto, Canada.
UV for protection is a waste, IMO. It's taking a really cheap piece of glass and throwing it in front of nice, expensive, optical glass.

Circular polarizers are a must, esp. for outdoors in bright sunlight, but UV is a waste. IMO.
Sure if you get like a $6 one. But I'm very impressed with my B+W one on my 70-200mm f/4 L.
 

sjl

macrumors 6502
Sep 15, 2004
441
0
Melbourne, Australia
I'm looking at getting a multicoated UV filter (Hoya superHMC UV filter), would that still be a waste? It supposedly has 99.7% transmission.
That's what I have on my 100-400mm. One word of advice: I've been told (haven't had occasion to find out yet) that they are an absolute pain in the backside to clean if you get fingerprints on them. Still, I'd rather have fingerprints on the filter than on the lens' front element. :eek: But then, if somebody dared try touching the front element of any of my glass, they'd not live for very long ... :cool:
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,625
448
Redondo Beach, California
UV for protection is a waste, IMO. It's taking a really cheap piece of glass and throwing it in front of nice, expensive, optical glass.

Circular polarizers are a must, esp. for outdoors in bright sunlight, but UV is a waste. IMO.
There might be some cheap, poor quality filters on the market but there are also some with optical quality as good as the elements in the nikon lens. In fact Nikon makes filters. There are many lines of good filters and now, with modern optical coating if you buy the "super multi coated" kind they have almost zero optical effect.

Next we can debate if you need a filter or not. But that's a different issue. People us UV filter to "protect" the front element of the lens. But a good filter will cost $30 and if you have a $100 "kit lens" you are over paying for insurance. There are cases where it makes sense too.

While the use of a UV filter is debatable. The filters that actually DO effect the light are nice to nice. Polerizsers are good. and one in a while a nuetral density gradient is good. and I have a small collection of "star"
and 'cross" filters that make light source and hightligt have a starburst pattern (not used these in years) I also have some "softening' filters and one with black net inside the glass. These can soften a portrain without making it look out of focus. Good mostly for older women.

But, now in the age on digital about the only effect that can't be done later in post processing are the polerizer and ND gradient.
 

Over Achiever

macrumors 68000
I've been told (haven't had occasion to find out yet) that they are an absolute pain in the backside to clean if you get fingerprints on them.
Ah, well that was the point of me getting the filter was because I know that the kids will eventually stick their fingers on the lens, snow/dust might get on it, and I'd rather have it on the filter instead.

So how does one go about cleaning a coated filter? The fact that it's small/thin and removable is nice, does ultrasonic cleaning work? I have an ultrasonic cleaner I use for my glasses.

-OA
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.