Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0


Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 10:53 AM

I still have loads of old filters UV, etc from the old film days. Somebody and suppliers 'write ups' told me that these are not suitable to use with digital cameras. Does anybody know the truth?

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 9 Sep 2010 - 10:53 AM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Sep 2010 - 10:53 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 12:07 PM

Personally I think most of it is sales hype, Though to be fair they have been playing around with the " Coatings " on the filters they claim to be " Digital " .

I think if your just talking about " Skylight " or " UV's, I doubt using an older stock item will make a great deal of difference ( well all my old ones work just fine ).

However there might be an element of caution regarding the " Polarising " types ie: CPL's.

One thing some of the newer ones offer is a very thin profile, This can help when used on " Ultra Wide " lens, To help lessen the chances of " Vignetting " ....!


Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 12:17 PM

Thanks for that, I have mounted an old 58mm UV on my new Sigma 70-300mm but whilst in the loft, I dug out 2 polarising filters of the same size. I will use them with caution and check the results.
Thanks again


pabloisme  4566 forum posts England
9 Sep 2010 - 12:56 PM

As an EX photo salesman in the 70's, & the start & availablity of GOOD cameras for general use, regrettably the margins were so pitifully small (worse NOW!) that you HAD to make the profit on "extras" erc's, bags, so FILTERS were always recommended and we had a pix of a leitz lens saved by the uv or s1a filter fitted on display, just to prove the point.

a polarising filter is a polarising filter, a uv filter is a uv filter,
some new filters are being sold as thin mounts (mainly) because the leses are not being designed to accept filters (or OEM kit) and show vignetting at extreme w/a so be careful. applies to wide stuff............

lens = 300 protection of a filter = 3 = no brainer

ps focusman - frank I have had a sigma 70 300 for almost 3 years, and a blindingly good lens it is, good choice...
(& always wears a uv! as well, gorra take me own advice!!)

I reuse my older stuff where poss, with stepup/down rings

keep snapping!

I was always amazed at camrea salesmen being happy to make a sale, and let the customer walk out without a film!

Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 1:44 PM

I actually bought a 67mm UV for the 18-105mm lens because I was worried that the old filter would degrade the image somewhat after reading that the design was different for digital than for conventional film, it was only when the Sigma arrived that I realised all my old 35mm Nikon filters were 58mm and though why not have another go this time.
As you say not protecting lenses is a no-brainer. I always did with all my lenses but I sold lots off with the cameras years ago, just before the price of film stuff crashed. Mamiyas C220 & C330 plus 6.4.5 stuff. I also sold a few Nikon 35mm jobs with assorted lenses but have kept one C220, 2x 35mm cameras (Nikon and Yashica) but I have all sorts of bits and pieces in the loft and will use them as now if the need arises.
No doubt somebody will come into the forum and tell me that I need to buy all new filters. I will test the polarisers and the UV and make my mind up myself. Many thanks for the help on tis matter guys, much appreciated.


Last Modified By Focus_Man at 9 Sep 2010 - 1:45 PM
9 Sep 2010 - 3:48 PM

Quote: a polarising filter is a polarising filter

Erm... No.

There used to be Linear polarisers first - then metering systems became more sophisticated and the circular version was developed to work with the the new systems.

Circular polarisers are the only option with today's cameras. A lot of 'older' film bodies will only be able to use circular polarisers also - certainly all my film bodies of the mid-'80's on did - and I include my current 35mm F5.

So - based on Focus Man's OP, it is possible that the polariser mentioned is old enough to be linear.


Last Modified By User_Removed at 9 Sep 2010 - 3:53 PM
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 4:27 PM

Erm...Yes (LOL)

The Polarising filters that I am talking about are circular rotating filters. You know the kind that you look through the viewfinder, rotate and select the result that you want when it occurs.


9 Sep 2010 - 6:48 PM



9 Sep 2010 - 8:51 PM

Quote: lens = 300 protection of a filter = 3 = no brainer

I am not sure I would want a piece of 3 glass in front of a 300 lens. Surely that would reduce the quality of the image such as to make buying said 300 lens pointless. I tend to use the hood for protection unless using effects filters CPL, grads, nds in which case the protection issue is moot as the filters are probably worth more than the lens they are "protecting" (CPL + ND grad + big stopper is an expensive drop)

StrayCat e2 Member 1014947 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2010 - 9:27 PM

I agree, use a filter if you can articulate a reason for it, otherwise the hood stays on my lenses all the time.

Your filters should be multi-coated, and I always go for a brand I recognise. The UV filter will help at high altitude.

Last Modified By StrayCat at 9 Sep 2010 - 9:31 PM
pabloisme  4566 forum posts England
10 Sep 2010 - 7:47 AM

Unless it has changed, and I have been around a few summers!

the filter glass manufacturers used sell the same thing on several levels, some we used to buy @ 50p (retail at 2.99) and the same thing from the same source, albeit with a nice name and it's own salesman/team promotion and advertising 1 (retail at 5.99+)

just as we are discussing now, we did it then, & to settle it? we tested both on a decent camera + lens, and found no difference we could actually tell and called it a draw, we were all experienced in our trade of photography both as practitioners, salesmen & stock buyers.

I really dont think the world has changed that much

I am only passing on my experiences as a learning tool,
now if you think a expensive filter is what you need then, I will have happily sold it to you

I think its a man thing, having an expensive and totally up to date bit of kit, BUYING & devouring the magazines and now the web, really trying hard to get this new panacea (first hand experience! I did earn my living from you!) as it will help you take better pix.....mmmmmmmmmm nah!

stop worrying and take pix

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
10 Sep 2010 - 8:03 AM

Yes, having been a photographer for 50 years, having used expensive equipment as mentioned in an earlier post on tis issue, the 3 piece of glass as you describe it, have never denigrated any images of mine, that the eye can see, and that is all that matters.
I thing, having started this thread, that the answer lies in 'suck-it-and-see. Having bought a new expensive Hoya UV for the 67mm lens (18-105) I think I have learned from you all that perhaps it is best for me to try my old 58mm UV on the new lens and also in the course of time, try the polarisers too.
Great chatting and please feel free to continue this as there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Pete Site Moderator 1318459 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
10 Sep 2010 - 9:10 AM

The truth is the UV or Skylight, and most other filters (including the polariser) will behave exactly the same with digital as they did with film. The discussions about degradation by having extra layers of glass (or plastic) in front of the lens have always been prevalent.
Many filters are no longer necessary. The 81A to warm up a picture or 80B to correct a yellow colour cast through incompatible light source for example can be corrected using the image processing software or camera white balance settings.

The confusion with the polarising filter above appears to be the circular reference.
There are two type of polarising filter - Linear and circular - both are round (physically circular). The difference is how they filter out the polarised light. And how they work can affect the camera performance.

The old linear type can affect metering or focus sensors on more modern cameras. The thing is you wouldn't know until you got the film processed with film cameras so you may not have compensated for the error. With digital you can shoot and check the result before continuing The same issues occurred on film cameras. As a general rule of thumb it's safer to use circular versions on auto cameras.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
pabloisme  4566 forum posts England
10 Sep 2010 - 10:54 AM

wanna buy some 81a + 80b in 62mm ?

he he

Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
10 Sep 2010 - 1:38 PM

I have 81a & 81b wanna buy orange, yellow and green?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.