U/V Filters - Pro's and Con's?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Wonsowski, Apr 25, 2005.

  1. I'm considering a D70 with a 24mm-120mm VR lens. In the past, I have
    always used a polorizing filter on my film type SLR lenses for
    protection. I occasionally see posts that claim that a filter is not
    necessary. What would the advantages be for **not** using a filter?

    Alan Wonsowski, Apr 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Wonsowski

    Steve Guest

    At risk of stating the obvious, any filter will add distortion in one
    shape or form and reduce the amount of light getting to the lens. The
    best filters however are so good that the effect is usually

    Whether UV filters are needed for digital cameras is a widely debated
    topic. I have read on many websites however that the D70 CCD is
    sensitive to UV light and hence a filter reduces haze when there is a
    lot of UV around, as it does in a film camera.

    I use a Hoya super HMC Pro-1 and have not noticed any detremental
    effects (or any benefits if i'm honest) but it serves to protect the
    lens which is all I really use it for. Not cheap though for a lens
    protector but there is no point putting a crap filter on a good lens.
    Steve, Apr 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Wonsowski

    Paul H. Guest

    Up front, I think the biggest con regarding filters is the increased
    potential for lens flare, especially if used without a lens hood. However,
    I do a lot of nature and landscape photography and generally use a polarizer
    (effect/protection) or even UV filter (protection only) in hostile shooting
    situations, such as on a fine-sand beach on a breezy day. Nothing screws up
    camera equipment faster than a visit from Mr. Sandman, as I found out many
    years ago when I, dumb kid that I was, took my new, unprotected Olympus film
    SLR on a visit to the seashore. These days, I always use a protective
    filter and wrap my cameras in such circumstances.

    As far as filters not being necessary goes, that's true enough in a
    functional sense for the UV filter, since digital doesn't suffer from
    altitude UV fogging the way low ISO film does. However, lenses are lenses
    whether you're shooting film or digital and when lens damage becomes a
    possibility, a filter is necessary indeed, unless you're rich enough to
    regard a good lens as a throw-away item.

    By the way, I still have my old, sand-blasted Oly film SLR and I'm still
    blowing grit out of the camera body. :)
    Paul H., Apr 25, 2005
  4. Alan Wonsowski

    Alan Browne Guest

    "a polarizing filter ... for protection" ?? Surely you meant a skylight
    or UV?


    Reasons not to use a filter:
    -increased flare artifacts when direct light hits the lens
    -vignetting increase at wide apertures
    -having to remove it to mount another filter to avoid vignetting

    Reasons to use a UV filter.
    -protect from dings
    -keep dust, fog, mist, snow, rain, ... off of lens
    -keep childrens fingers, dog tongues, etc. off of lens
    -to reduce UV (which doesn't matter for digital, I believe)

    Other ways to protect:
    -use a deep lens shade
    -keep cap on lens except when in use
    -be careful!

    I usually remove the filters from my wide lenses when shooting unless
    the risks above (dust, mist, children, dogs... etc.) are present. My
    50mm and 100mm almost never have filters attached.


    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Apr 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.