I don't use any. I am pretty careful and use my lens hoods.
Use of Lens Naked without any UV Filters
(125 posts) (47 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
[humor]
UV filter, No! Do I really want to be using the same lens for 30 years or do I need an excuse to buy a new one from time to time.
[/humor]
framerPosted 2 years ago # -
Framer, I like the way you think !!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I use UV on my film lenses, but that is a different story.
On use Nikon NC on my 77mm lenses and have one Nikon CP that get shared among them. On the cheaper lenses I usually just have a CP when I need one, otherwise they go naked...
Posted 2 years ago # -
My cheap lenses have B&W and my good glass are au naturale. I started out putting filters on all my lenses for protection. Now its more about what I can do to make the shot better.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi all, my first post! I've been lurking un-noticed in the bowels of the forum for several months now, enjoying your banter. Thought it was about time I came out and introduced myself! After a 20 Year absence from photography (my last cameras were Nikon F501 & F601, which I think you called something else in the states?), I have just got back involved again. After reading EVERY U.K. mag for a few months, and seeing how it appeared that Canon had screwed up the ergonomics of their equipment, I went out and bought a D700, followed by a D3s. Really pleased I did as I would have been sick if I had locked myself into the Canon lineup! Nikkor lenses are as good as I remember. Anyway after the cameras, I obviously needed to buy some glass, so 6 lenses and about (quick exchange rate calculation) $8000 later, (now you know why I chose the forum name I did :-), I have what I think is a nice setup. I just wanted to say that I have bought Hoya's HD UV & CPL filters for all of them, with the UV's left on all the time for protection. After an experience shooting a small child with my F501, with no lens protection, who puked up all over the end of the lens, and left me cleaning out pieces of diced Carrot off of my objective lens element, I swore never again!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I seldom do because they ghost like crazy when Im out shooting out at night. (I honestly don't spend more than $30 on a filter)
Posted 2 years ago # -
kyoshinikon - never had a problem with ghosting, but I tend to spend more on my filters. B+W is pretty expensive.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have had massive issues in the past with ghosting and low contrast. Sigma lenses seem to have the most issues. I always buy the multi-coated now and for the most part, I rarely have any issues. That being said, I always use them and they have saved me a couple of times. I just like the idea of taking my tee shirt to wipe off dirt and garbage without having to worry about my $1k lens. 77mm low profile filters do hurt to buy though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I tested a number of UV haze and neutral density filters pretty carefully to see if I could use them and my own conclusion was NO. I could even tell the difference on JPEG fine large. I did try some very pricey glass for "protection". My personal conclusion is that on my best lens I did not want to degrade the final image in any way even if it provided added protection. So I shoot without filters. The exception is once in awhile I need to shoot into water, then the filters I use are really exotic specialty glass.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I should add to the above post that the only time the lens cover comes off my favorite lenses is when I am about to shoot although on one lens I do usually leave the bare lens with the quite long lens hood on the 70-300VR.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes most people seem to use UV filters and I do to except of course for my 14-24mm but, I wish I could like everyone else who owns this lens. Some of my friends don't put UV filters on their Leica glass can you imagine? One friend in particular refuses to put one on his Leica M F 0.95 50mm Noctilux that was purchased for $7000 USD. I bug him about it everytime I see him...
Posted 2 years ago # -
it's a nice lens kanuck, wouldn't mind Nikon version :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
I hope nikon comes out with a noct 50 1.2 in a few years!
I too use a filter on all of my lenses. I can't see myself not using one ever. Not like something would happen but it's just using a little extra protection on a lens worth 2000$. I tend to buy the cheapest uv filters anything to cover up the beautiful glass
Posted 2 years ago # -
i don't use filters either. only if i'm into some grime environment.
i don't know much about chemistry and multi-coating, but the way i pick filters is quite simple and basic.
i just place the filter upon a piece of white paper and see which one remains the whitest.
you'll notice most of the filters render a bit yellow. even the B+W.
ever since horseman made filters too, i swapped all my B+W for it.
you can see the horseman remains the whitest of all, even compared to the highly regarded brands.
btw, the horseman is close to half of what B+W costs :) horseman is no little league in camera industry.correct me if my method's wrong. i picked it up from a few very old photographers i know.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi,
I use Nikon filters on all my lenses, even the wide-angle zooms. The filters are thin enough not to vignette.
It would make sense that you'd want the best optical performance you could get (at least matching optical performance - hence Nikon for me), but for color shifting, color temperature changing and such, any minor changes would be changed in software, even in the camera.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
I take my chances without. no opinion on which way is better, to each their own of course. But across all my electronics, I'll absorb the cost if one or two things break. doesn't happen very often. more likely to break a bone snowboarding than run into a subject with my lens :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
usf said:
correct me if my method's wrong. i picked it up from a few very old photographers i know.
Colour is not the most importat thing.. best way is to take a photo of a fairly distant plain uniform background... the bad ones you will see stripes of repeating patterns due to the "unflat" surfaces of the filter. esp if you up the contrast a bit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Filters? Where we're shooting we don't need filters!
i like to live on the edge, so I don't use filters. Yeah I am a badass lol.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Im a night shooter. I find that ALL filters ghost at night.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I do not put a cheap piece of glass in front of a computer designed high quality optic unless I am looking for an effect. When I say cheap I mean any flat glass filter (my polarizer is a B&W....$200 and I only use it if I want the scene polarized). Even the best flat glass must obey the laws of physics and therefore impart chromatic aberrations on your image. Light must pass through corrected glass for the best image, and flat glass is very destructive to an image. If you are buying quality lenses and are careful with them, you should have higher image quality without putting a protective filter over it. It would be like buying a Porsche and only driving it 30 mph because you didn't want to harm the engine. Get the most out of your lens and use only the entire formula that was part of the original design.
Posted 2 years ago # -
smarterchild said:
I hope nikon comes out with a noct 50 1.2 in a few years!I too use a filter on all of my lenses. I can't see myself not using one ever. Not like something would happen but it's just using a little extra protection on a lens worth 2000$. I tend to buy the cheapest uv filters anything to cover up the beautiful glass
With all due respect, you have just degraded your $2K lens to its lowest common denominator, the cheapest, lowest quality piece of glass you can find. Which is now part of the optical formula which is responsible for your final image. Your image will first pass through the cheap glass and no optics in the world can fix it after that. You may as well be buying $200 lenses. The image is only as good as its weakest link. Not trolling,....just sayin....
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've already commented on this thread, but I wanted to add something . . .
Although I've never kept UV filters on any of my lenses, I'm often shooting through a lot of atmospheric haze, since I live in Los Angeles, the haze capital of the world. I've been meaning to test a good multi-coated haze/UV filter to see if they really live up to their claims. However, often when shooting daylight exteriors, I do use a Nikon polarizer. Does anyone know if circular polarizers also filters UV?
Another myth-buster question: doesn't modern optical glass already filter out much of the UV spectrum anyway? Also, isn't it true that any type of glass blocks some UV? What is so special about a "UV" filter?
On another note, I tend to shoot into light sources quite a bit, and in those cases particularly, lowered contrast, ghosting, and stray light are definite issues with clear filters, even high-quality, multi-coated ones. The HD lenses on the video cameras we use at work cost about $35,000 each, so they like us to keep our UV filters on them, but we often have to remove them when including any light sources in the frame.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If I am somewhere there is haze that day I just don't photograph. Haze photos have no value to me. That is a good day to do macro shots. I don't use filters except for a very rare use of polarization. Shooting down into water at anything but the optimum angle usually requires a polarizing filter. Other than that I prefer to use the lens as it was designed and built by Nikon. If the lens gets damaged it just has to be replaced. I have only twice had to replace a lens due to that. Losing cameras and lenses underwater though has been a big problem in the past and always causes me much anguish. I have tried some really expensive filters. I often pick up someone's camera and lens and am amazed at the haze on the protective filter. If you use a filter make sure it is clean. Same thing for your lens elements, front and rear.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
