Use of Lens Naked without any UV Filters

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Use of Lens Naked without any UV Filters

(125 posts) (47 voices)

Tags:

replica watches for sale

« Previous 1…345 Next »

tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I will admit it right now...I am being to lazy to read through all the threads on the filters. I looked at a lot of posts, but I am still not sure what to do.

I currently use no filters at all. Damage to my lens is not a worry for me. Although I know even the most careful people could drop it or something I don't want the filter for lens protection. I want to know if picture wise there are benefits to using one? What filter would most all around be beneficial? Shooting mostly landscapes and wildlife. I rarely shoot portraits (just family pictures during holidays and such if ever), but I think having no filter is working OK in that respect right now.

So short version...is there an advantage other then lens protection to using any?

Posted 2 years ago #
broxibear

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 254
offline

"So short version...is there an advantage other then lens protection to using any?"
Short answer...no.
If however you want to use filters for your landscape photography then there's a lot of different filters that can be of use to you.
Just google "filters for landscape photography"

Posted 2 years ago #
Segura

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 120
offline

B+W XS Pro Clear on all my Nikon glass, including my cheapest lens, the $440 50mm f/1.4G.

Clear filter because UV is not necessary on Digital
Filter is for protection. When I buy a new lens, I buy a filter. With the new lenses like the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm, that had delays, I always had the filter delivered months before I got the new lens. As soon as the lens is removed from the box, the filter goes on. None of my lenses have ever been cleaned with any solution, only the filters, and that is if needed. Lens cleaning solution can possibly remove the Multicoat if used too much, and too much rubbing.

The B+W XS Pro is probably thinner than the Nikon NC, and heavy brass too, instead of the thin whatever the Nikon is made from. Yes I have owned the Nikon filters and know first hand.

Posted 2 years ago #
Super Shooter

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 277
offline

tcole1983 said:
I am being to lazy to read through all the threads on the filters.
...is there an advantage other then lens protection to using any?

I'm too lazy to give you the right answer.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

+1

tcole1983 didn't you already reply with a similar post 3 months ago?

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

TaoTeJared said:
+1

tcole1983 didn't you already reply with a similar post 3 months ago?

Nah, I just said I didn't use any. I did go read some other sites after broxibears post. I didn't think the thread totally was to my point of interest because I wasn't interested in what brand people are using to protect their lenses...IE I am not buying a filter just to have on my lens. If I buy one I want my pictures to benefit from it. I didn't make a whole new thread for the topic. I still am not sure I realize the difference in a polarizing, ND and graduated filter.

I guess I will ask a more specific question then. A blown out sky with colors and stuff OK on the scenery...what would I want to use then? It seems like maybe a polarizing filter maybe? Would it be useful for any other situations?

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

<

tcole1983 said:
. I still am not sure I realize the difference in a polarizing, ND and graduated filter.

just type the question in to Google. Ken R has a good post on the subject
PS I would shoot in RAW and use LR3 rather than buy a set of graduated filters

Posted 2 years ago #
crocodilo

member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 23
offline

There's only a certain amount of corrections you can do in PP. If the sky is blownout and/or the ground is turned into a deep shadow, no software is ever going to recover that, unfortunately. Shooting in RAW might allow you one or two extra stops of dynamic range, but that's it, and you better be real carefull not to clip the highlights. Recovering deep shadows will bring noise up, definetely. A grad filter sometimes is the only solution.

That said, I don't have the time, the money or the patience to set up a tripod and play with grads in front of the lens, either...

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

Bottom line with digital, you'd better get close when you take the photo. RAW will not save you from poor pre-settings on your Nikon DSLR. I find that polarizing filters are not of much value in digital. They were more important on film. I personally after making quite a study of this in prints and on a big screen LED stopped using all filters except where I am shooting down into water, and in cases where the lens will be left without a lens cap for too long and then the protection is well worth it!!

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I will post a couple pics when I get home and maybe someone can point out if a filter would have helped in either cases. I already know which 2 I want to use.

I also shot my latest batch in RAW, but I haven't had a chance to mess with them at all and see if anything can be helped at all.

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

sevencrossing said:
<

just type the question in to Google. Ken R has a good post on the subject
PS I would shoot in RAW and use LR3 rather than buy a set of graduated filters

I looked at the article on Ken R's page. Not sure I care for him all that much...he has a very strong opinion about things and that is all.

DaveyJ said:
Bottom line with digital, you'd better get close when you take the photo. RAW will not save you from poor pre-settings on your Nikon DSLR. I find that polarizing filters are not of much value in digital. They were more important on film. I personally after making quite a study of this in prints and on a big screen LED stopped using all filters except where I am shooting down into water, and in cases where the lens will be left without a lens cap for too long and then the protection is well worth it!!

And as for this is the other part. I hear both sides from Ken R saying he always uses such and such filter to others saying they never use them...I guess that is one confusing part about them. I never shot film so I don't know the difference :X

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Here are the two I was thinking about...

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Now that is making since. I always use UV filters which I feel that it helps cut some of the haze in the the photos. (a little more contrast- not much but some.)

First photo: (UV filter always to create some better definition) I would use a polarizer (bring out some of the blue skys) then I would also use a 4 Graduated ND "plate" filter from Lee, Cokin, etc. to underexpose the sky to bring the the color and definition back.

The 2nd photo: A haze/uv filter could help some but mostly that is how the photo will turn out always. Due to the size of the subject and composition your only bet is HDR or underexpose a 2nd photo by probably -2 to get the sky back and then combine them. There is just too many stops between the sky and the shadow on the front of the boat.

This probably needs a new thread if we go more into detail since it goes well beyond UV filters.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Yes shooting in RAW and using B&W UV filters shouldn't cause much of a difference I think in your shots. If there is a noticeable difference, chances are its you and not the filters.

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

I think one of many ways to fix the top photo would be a gradual neutral density filter. That would bring down the exposure in your sky and allow you to expose for both. Or if you had a tripod shoot once for sky and once for forground and blend with photoshop/

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Maybe Niko can move this whole page to a new topic - We have moved off of UV and into a new topic for "Using filters to balance blown out skies and highlights".

This is a good topic, maybe not in the right thread. I think I saw another question today that may encompass this as well.

Posted 2 years ago #
broxibear

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 254
offline

Hi tcole1983,
Hope you don't mind but I wanted to show you what you can do by just some simple contrast, grad filter and sharpness changes in photoshop even with a jpeg...

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Thanks for the comments everyone and no problem broxibear I will have to try out editing them some and see what I can do with the RAW files.

Sorry for the move off topic.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Just curious, what UV filters do you guys use?

Maybe that's for another thread though.

I'm using Tiffen filters because they're cheap, but I might be getting Hoyas for future lenses.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I try to use B&W everything now if I can find them. They are really hard to find in 39mm sizes for my Leica, but I have been loving them on my Nikkors for years now.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi,

There are some advantages to putting a filter on your lenses that have little to do with shooting pictures; it's also called a 'protection filter' for a reason.

I take my lenses to and from places and frankly, the bag gets bounced around a bit, in some places, a lot, and in some cases, by someone other than me.

The rear cap is pretty secure, but the front lens less so. I've opened the bag up to see some lens caps off and the lenses rather 'free ranging' in the bag with some rough treatment.

While I doubt many of you will have some of these experiences, you might want to think 'protection' along with 'imaging'.

So, I'd recommend a lens filter for any lens, and a good one at that, anyway, regardless of what value it has to a picture. :-)

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

There are some advantages to putting a filter on your lenses that have little to do with shooting pictures; it's also called a 'protection filter' for a reason.

I take my lenses to and from places and frankly, the bag gets bounced around a bit, in some places, a lot, and in some cases, by someone other than me.

The rear cap is pretty secure, but the front lens less so. I've opened the bag up to see some lens caps off and the lenses rather 'free ranging' in the bag with some rough treatment.

While I doubt many of you will have some of these experiences, you might want to think 'protection' along with 'imaging'.

So, I'd recommend a lens filter for any lens, and a good one at that, anyway, regardless of what value it has to a picture. :-)

My best,

Mike

That's exactly why my filters are so cheap. Not that I've noticed, but image degradation is negligible at best. Besides, I'm not shooting for anyone.

If and when I get circular polarizers and neutral density filters though, that'll change.

Posted 2 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

I also try to use B&W filters, but do have a Nikon or two.
Nothing to add re getting better shots with filters - agree that maybe a graduated filter would have helped in the sample photos, but you'd probably still need a bit of post processing on the tug photo - just too much of it is splitting the vertical. HDR is the way to go, in my opinion, on both of these images.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

warprints its funny, but I've never been able to consistently find any Nikon filters except for a few used filters in the shops that I have visited. I have heard there are quite good though. Would you say they are similar to B&W? I have all B&W UV and polorizers now. It was costly,and took about 12 months to do, but I wanted the best for my expensive glass (Leica and Nikkors).

Posted 2 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

Kanuck - B&H and Amazon both often have several sizes of Nikon NC filters.
I prefer B&W - I have no real evidence of it, but I just feel they are a little less flimsy and are less likely to have rough threads.

Posted 2 years ago #