Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PortraitPro 17 with Background Editing Out Now! EXTRA 10% OFF code EPZRS17

UV Filter


cheddar-caveman 14 1.1k England
19 May 2017 9:27AM
Having just bought a Fujicon 100-400mm lens I want to protect the front end with a UV filter.
However, is cost really such a factor> I see them for anything from 4 to 50 so does money do a better job?
On my Canon 100-400 I had a Hoya, can't remember what it cost though.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

saltireblue Plus
7 7.3k 33 Norway
19 May 2017 9:35AM
Instead of a UV filter, why not use a plain protective one? (I use B&W's MRC Nano coated ones.)
themak 4 1.0k Scotland
19 May 2017 10:14AM
I use Hoya Pro1 or the B&W ones above - seems mad to cut corners on an expensive lens. Ffordes and Wex usually have a stock of very good used ones if you want to cut the cost.
LenShepherd 9 3.5k United Kingdom
19 May 2017 11:31AM
Maybe its time to update your knowledge of photography.
Before World War II in "UV prone" conditions a UV filter, often carried in a little round protective holder attached to a camera strap, was important because B&W film of that era was very susceptible to UV issues.
The filter was often removed and stored in the holder because photographers recognised in that era of often uncoated lens a UV did more harm than good when UV conditions were unlikely.
Back then colour film was unaffordable to many so the fact that most UV filters reduce the violet and blue colour gamut of colour film somewhat was not an issue.
Today digital sensors incorporate UV filtration so there is no point in further reducing violet and blue colour reaching the sensor.
That is the reason for suggesting a clear filter and not a UV.
Nikon (the brand I use) has not made UV filters for about a decade, and supply big telephotos with clear, not UV, rear slot in filters.
An extra issues with flat glass filters is MC does not work when light hits the glass at a low angle. This increases the risk of highlights reflected off a highly reflective sensor being reflected of the back of a filter to create a double highlight image in the picture.
I am not sure what you think a filter, likely to cause some image degradation at least some of the time, can protect that a lens hood does not.
Spending money on insurance for cover for any damage or theft often costs less than a decent filter.
I do not mind if you do part of what your grandfather might have done using a UV filter when it might improve film results of the era. There is a good chance your grandfather lived in a house which did not have a hot water supply for a hot water tap and had a weekly bath in a tin bath. Times move on.
Philh04 Plus
12 1.2k United Kingdom
19 May 2017 11:35AM
There are many arguments for and against using a filter as protection against any damage, however I have seen instances where the lens as well as the filter have taken damage, personally I never use a filter relying on the lens hood for protection, but as others have said buy the most expensive one you can afford.. The original Canon 100 - 400 gave funky bokeh even when used with an expensive filter.
JJGEE 12 7.1k 18 England
19 May 2017 12:21PM

Quote:Spending money on insurance for cover for any damage or theft often costs less than a decent filter.

I doubt insurance cover often costs less than a decent filter.




themak 4 1.0k Scotland
19 May 2017 12:37PM

Quote:and supply big telephotos with clear, not UV, rear slot in filters.

Presumably to keep crud off the rear element.
Philh04 Plus
12 1.2k United Kingdom
19 May 2017 1:10PM

Quote:
Quote:and supply big telephotos with clear, not UV, rear slot in filters.

Presumably to keep crud off the rear element.


The filters are optically matched to the lens formulation so they provide their best IQ with the clear filter in place, that way you can use CP's and various other filters as long as they are optically matched.
19 May 2017 1:23PM
Many of the longer Nikon telephotos have a plain glass "element" at the front to do the same job as the "protective" UV filter. The only difference is that the lens needs to go to a service facility when the protective glass gets damaged.

I'd suggest that the OP check whether this lens already has a protective glass fitted.

I've been using UV/sky filters as protection for as long as I can remember and a fair number have been scrapped when they got damaged. The filters have always been of the same quality as the lens, though not always the same make.

My Nikon 24-70mm currently has a Leica filter fitted so would that offend fanatical owners of either brand?.
Philh04 Plus
12 1.2k United Kingdom
19 May 2017 3:17PM

Quote:Many of the longer Nikon telephotos have a plain glass "element" at the front to do the same job

Tis the Same with Canon, not sure about the fujicon 100 -400 though.
Philh04 Plus
12 1.2k United Kingdom
19 May 2017 3:30PM
To late to edit... doh, I see it is Fujinon not Fujicon... looking at the element layout diagram if would appear that it does not have a protective front glass. Make sure you purchase a protective filter rather than UV, WEX do a Hoya Pro 1 for 40..... You still need to make sure you use the hood as you are adding more glass surfaces to the equation.
Fma7 2 791 United Kingdom
19 May 2017 5:12PM

Some info here
LenShepherd 9 3.5k United Kingdom
20 May 2017 8:31AM

Quote:
I doubt insurance cover often costs less than a decent filter


Doubt or not 10/15 is "about right" per 1,000 value if you are an amateur.
Chris_L Plus
3 4.1k United Kingdom
20 May 2017 11:36AM
Did your lens come with a cap to protect the front element?

I can be reasonably confident that when I remove the lens cap to take some shots that nothing is going to damage my lens' front element. That the lens hood will stop large birds from smashing beak first into the lens' front element.

Unless shooting sand storms or stone throwing competitions I'd not waste money on a bit of cheap glass to reflect light away from my expensive lens.
cheddar-caveman 14 1.1k England
20 May 2017 12:11PM
Yes it came with a front cap but when out on a wildlife shoot, for example, it isn't in place and there is always a chance that, when walking through tall bracken, woods and the like, something, even if it's only water drops, could get onto the lens. I'd prefer to have permanent protection there!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.