06-07-2012, 07:54 PM
Hello Wim,
Thanks for your reply.
I didn't use UV-filters as protection, but after reading your reply, I think it's better to start using them after all. Even if the repair of a front element is as expensive as a good UV-filter getting a lens repaired can take several weeks. Whilst if you break only a UV-filter, you can still use the lens.
Don't we need UV-filters anymore in, lets say, mountains with digital camera's for too much UV or is it all neutralised by the sensor(surface)?
Best wishes,
Reinier
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1339089827' post='18747']
Hi Reinier,
From a UV POV, with digital a UV-filter doesn't really add anything, as the AA-filter assembly already takes care of UV light. With digital, UV-filters are generally used as protection filters, for the simple reason that it is reltively hard to get protection filters as such, and UV filters actually work as well as protection filters for exactly that: protection.
With film it is a different story. Even on a sunny day it is useful, even in the Low Lands, to use a UV filter.
As to the use of a good filter vs a not so good one for protection: a sensor effectively is a half-mirror, it reflects about 40 % to 60 % of the light it receives. With less good filters, i.e., non-MC ones, you will find that under certain conditions you may get a lot of flare and reflection induced image degradation in your photographs, often due to reflections off the filter, and especially from the back of the filter.
Whether it is worth your while to get a good filter for a specific lens, is up to you. I've been using UV-filters for protection for over 35 years now, and I am glad for it considering some of the mishaps that occurred to my lenses. I did unwiitingly use not so great filters when I started with digital, but after some serious flare and halo problems, which effectively ruined my images, I went for good quality ones, and have never looked back. The problem really is that under circumstances which allow for intriguing images, these same circumstances may also generate lots of potentially unwanted effects, caused by, e.g., a low sun etc. With good filters I haven't encountered any problems yet in this regard, with not so good ones I did.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
Thanks for your reply.
I didn't use UV-filters as protection, but after reading your reply, I think it's better to start using them after all. Even if the repair of a front element is as expensive as a good UV-filter getting a lens repaired can take several weeks. Whilst if you break only a UV-filter, you can still use the lens.
Don't we need UV-filters anymore in, lets say, mountains with digital camera's for too much UV or is it all neutralised by the sensor(surface)?
Best wishes,
Reinier
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1339089827' post='18747']
Hi Reinier,
From a UV POV, with digital a UV-filter doesn't really add anything, as the AA-filter assembly already takes care of UV light. With digital, UV-filters are generally used as protection filters, for the simple reason that it is reltively hard to get protection filters as such, and UV filters actually work as well as protection filters for exactly that: protection.
With film it is a different story. Even on a sunny day it is useful, even in the Low Lands, to use a UV filter.
As to the use of a good filter vs a not so good one for protection: a sensor effectively is a half-mirror, it reflects about 40 % to 60 % of the light it receives. With less good filters, i.e., non-MC ones, you will find that under certain conditions you may get a lot of flare and reflection induced image degradation in your photographs, often due to reflections off the filter, and especially from the back of the filter.
Whether it is worth your while to get a good filter for a specific lens, is up to you. I've been using UV-filters for protection for over 35 years now, and I am glad for it considering some of the mishaps that occurred to my lenses. I did unwiitingly use not so great filters when I started with digital, but after some serious flare and halo problems, which effectively ruined my images, I went for good quality ones, and have never looked back. The problem really is that under circumstances which allow for intriguing images, these same circumstances may also generate lots of potentially unwanted effects, caused by, e.g., a low sun etc. With good filters I haven't encountered any problems yet in this regard, with not so good ones I did.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
[/quote]