Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Here Uses UV Filters?  
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

I'm thinking about getting this filter for my Pentax ZX-7:

http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=RequiredAccessoriesActivator__Aproduct_html___41637___PEUV58___REG___CatID=-269___SID=EF639D33A10

It would mainly be to protect the lens, but also to to help reduce the UV Rays.

Are they worth it? Should I get it?

Also, how useful are polarizer filters?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Regards


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

UV filters, I have one on all of my lenses, blocks the UV (thus protects your eyes) and protects the lense as you said. I have no experience in using polarizers.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Okay, I guess I will get it then when I order the Scan Dual II.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

I normally try and stay away from UV or other "protection" filters. First of all, they are essentially just a clear piece of glass that will not improve your photos any (despite what the marketing B.S. spews). In fact, UV filters will promote softer images and increase chances of flare. These chances can be reduced somewhat by investing in a high-quality, multi-coated filter like a Hoya S-HMC or B+W, but the benefits gained (in my opinion) are not worth the cost.

If you are careful with your equipment and use a good, metal lens hood, it will provide a lot more protection than some thin piece of glass (unless you plan on shooting in perpetual dust storms).

Just my two cents.  Smile



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

You can be as carefull as you want, but what if someone else isn't? Bump into you, makes you drop the cam while shooting..... Everybody what he wants offcourse, but I don't take the chance...

I have one B+w and one Hoya, so I do use quality filters



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

"You can be as carefull as you want, but what if someone else isn't? Bump into you, makes you drop the cam while shooting..."

Lens Hood.  Big grin



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2182 times:

Lenshood is indeed the answer to protection, unless you thing someone's going to throw paint or mud at you. In such cases a filter is recommended.

Get the best filters you can afford. It's silly putting a $10 filter on a $1000 lens.
Best lines are multicoated B+W and Hoya. Expect to pay for them, a 77mm Hoya KR1.5 MRC (Skylight, which I like better, as it also has a slight warming effect) will set you back about $75 (incl taxes).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

I use Hoya HMC filters on all of my lenses. Mostly they're UV but some are skylights. I also use hoods as well. I find that they serve two different purposes; the hood saves the lens when I drop it but the filter protects in situations where I can't use the hood [like against a fence] and allows me to clean the front of the lens in the wet or dust without being as careful as I might normally be. I've also had a filter which was broken by a stray gravel chip when I was doing a motor racing event - the lens wasn't affected so I guess you could say the filter did it's job.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineDSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

UV/Skylight filters are, if anything, a personal preference. If it makes you more comfortable knowing that a filter is on, knock yourself out.

I concur with J.T., it is silly to go out and buy an expensive lens just to throw some cheap UV filter on the front of it...It kind of defeats the purpose of buying high-quality glass, doesn't it? I am just an advocate of lens hoods, they provide the most protection, they are cheaper (generally), and most importantly, they WORK...Not only as protection, but by reducing the amount of stray light that enters the lens.



To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

How is this $35 Pentax filter? Would it be good or no?

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

I use a UV filter on my Pentax ZX-30 100% of the time. Check out my photos if you want to compare.

regards,
Serge Walczak


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2607 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Serge, what type and brand is your filter?

User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

I don't have the original packaging anymore, but on the filter itself it says "Sunpak 58mm UV, Made in Japan". I bought it online on cameraworld.com.

regards,
Serge


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2607 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

How much did you pay for it? do you remember?

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

If you use them to keep dust away from you lenses proper then they are a good thing. As far as sharpness as it has been mentioned before, you will loose a little since you are shooting through another layer of class.

I wouldn't recommend anybody by screw-in or ring type filters anyway. Unless it is a circular polorizer.

If I had to do it again, instead of investing in the screw in ones that I have now, I would have bought into a Coklin filter system and their square filters. You have a much larger selection of special effect filters available and one you have the filters and the mount, you just need an adaptor ring for you size lense.

It is pretty expensive to by screw-in filters for lense sizes larger the 62mm. A coklin 62mm ring is pretty cheap. and like I said, the filters and holder will work on just about any size lense.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Hey Serge, BA.

I put up another post, http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/56573/

But am looking for some opinions on what you think of those particular model cameras.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

L-188, personally I prefer screwin filters over Cokin because they are optically superior.
The only Cokins I am really comfortable with are the closeup and graduated filters. The closup lenses are glass, the graduated ones are just too much of a hassle to use as screwin ones.
I've ordered a Cokin polariser, but only because I need one and have no money to buy the 77mm screwmount B+W which costs twice as much (but I will probably buy that in due course).

Cokin has its place, but I see it more as a line for filters that are used infrequently or (as with the graudated ones) are just too hard to use when you can't slide them up and down as required.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

I made the switch when I got that one lense with the 62mm opening in the front. Like I said I couldn't belive what they wanted the screw in that size.

Most of the Cokin ones that I have are ones that are ment to be used with B&W film, (Red,Orange,Yellow,Green)

I do want to pick up a couple of star filters and a couple of graduated in the same color.

When you are supporting lense with three different sizes of screw adaptors,( 49, 58, 62mm respecively) it is a lot cheaper to buy Coklin and then just have the ring adaptors for the lens.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Hoya IMO are hit and miss. For the price that you pay for them they just aren't the quality that I would expect. Now B+W and Tiffen I have found good results and have a few of them that I use all the time.

Now I suggest getting a high quality UV filter for every lens, why, because repairing the front element is rather expensive. I keep UV filters on all my lens all the time. One thing I do though it rotate them monthly so they don't get stuck on the lens.

Now polrizers are real nice if you want to take photos of reflective objects like glass, and water they all you to see though the surface rather well.

Now the Cokin P mount is a rather good system IMO, but the Cokin filters just aren't up to the quality that I expect, they are plastic, compared to the normal glass. If you buy into their system use the more expensive glass filters, they produce better results. I do like the system because I can place grad ND filter and move it up and down with ease, instead of having to move the camera up and down.



At worst, you screw up and die.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Here Is Shooting RAW / NEF posted Thu Jan 5 2006 13:43:10 by LH526
Who Still Uses 35mm Film? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 20:15:48 by SmithAir747
Stay Away From Tiffen UV Filters posted Sun Jun 26 2005 00:18:53 by Whoop
UV Filters? posted Sat Mar 12 2005 17:12:05 by Sean377
UV Filters For Lenses Or Not? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 11:10:32 by Fergulmcc
UV Filters posted Sun May 16 2004 11:24:53 by ChrisThurtell
Who Here Owns A Sony DSC-F717? posted Wed Nov 19 2003 14:33:05 by JKW777
Tamron 28-300mm And UV Filters posted Sun Mar 19 2000 09:28:24 by WiL SW737
Who Uses RAW Format From Their Camera? posted Thu Jul 29 2004 14:27:51 by Cficraigapa
Who Uses Two Monitors On One PC? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 21:09:11 by Maiznblu_757