Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Do I really need a UV Haze Filter, when...

uv haze filter

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

I have this nagging question as to whether or not I need to use a UV filter on my lenses when there is a low-pass filter in front of my sensor.  Not really a trouble shooting/technical issue, so I thought Beginner Questions was more appropriate.  I do subscribe to the theory of protecting the front element along with the mounting threads, so I guess this is more of a rhetorical question than a practical question.  I am sure it would be good to know either way.

 

Thanks very much for any all assistance offered.

 

Tony



#2
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,261 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

The UV filter has mostly gone the way of the dodo bird. It's not really a necessity for what it filters but more for what it protects. Namely, the front lens element. Photographers can argue all day about the wisdom of using UV filters and many pros (and wannabe pros) will say that they never use a UV (or NC) filter at all because it detracts from their camera's image quality. Maybe I would too if I were on an equipment expense account. It's certainly not necessary to actually filter UV rays.

 

Personally, I don't give it a whole lot of thought... unless I'm buying a news lens. Then, I always get a sparkling new Nikon NC (not UV) filter to go with it. I can't remember the last time I bought a UV filter.

 

--Ron



#3
MJL

MJL

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationThe Canadian wet coast

Site Supporter

The UV filter has mostly gone the way of the dodo bird. It's not really a necessity for what it filters but more for what it protects. Namely, the front lens element. Photographers can argue all day about the wisdom of using UV filters and many pros (and wannabe pros) will say that they never use a UV (or NC) filter at all because it detracts from their camera's image quality. Maybe I would too if I were on an equipment expense account. It's certainly not necessary to actually filter UV rays.

 

Personally, I don't give it a whole lot of thought... unless I'm buying a news lens. Then, I always get a sparkling new Nikon NC (not UV) filter to go with it. I can't remember the last time I bought a UV filter.

 

--Ron

Same here.  I stop using UV or skylight filters ever since switched into digital, but "quality" multi coated clear filters stay on my lenses just for protection again the elements & impact.  Dropped my (metal barrel) lenses a few times throughout the years and fortunately only scarificed the filters.  Unsure about the mostly plastic body lenses of today though.



#4
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

Same here.  I stop using UV or skylight filters ever since switched into digital, but "quality" multi coated clear filters stay on my lenses just for protection again the elements & impact.  Dropped my (metal barrel) lenses a few times throughout the years and fortunately only scarificed the filters.  Unsure about the mostly plastic body lenses of today though.

Okay, well great info here.  It is interesting as to how many folks swear  by NC and UV filters.  I just checked on ebay and there is a Nikon NC Filter available for $69.95.  Seems expensive for an item whose affects are negligible.  Thanks again for the info.  Tony



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,634 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I have B+W 007M filters that I use when I will be out in flying sand, dust or water spray. They are made from clear optical glass, multicoated and the threaded rings are brass so they don't gall. They are quite cheap for the quality, only $44.95 in 72 mm from B&H. When I am not in these high-risk situations, they stay off as there are situations when they can produce ghost images and strange artifacts.

I have lost one lens *because of* the filter as it shattered on impact and pieces of filter embedded themselves in the front element. I don't know if the front element had survived that time, but it seems probable.



#6
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

I have B+W 007M filters that I use when I will be out in flying sand, dust or water spray. They are made from clear optical glass, multicoated and the threaded rings are brass so they don't gall. They are quite cheap for the quality, only $44.95 in 72 mm from B&H. When I am not in these high-risk situations, they stay off as there are situations when they can produce ghost images and strange artifacts.

I have lost one lens *because of* the filter as it shattered on impact and pieces of filter embedded themselves in the front element. I don't know if the front element had survived that time, but it seems probable.

I can well remember when a couple of years ago my wife and I were walking along the shore in Garibaldi, Oregon.  Of course I had my neck strap on and my right hand on the lens, when the strap just broke and I was able to prevent the lens and camera from dropping lens first into salt water and sand.   It was a heavy set up I had:  A Nikon N8008s camera with a AF Nikkor 70~210mm Lens.  Since then, I now use heavy duty straps for "Just in case."    Well, thanks again for all the helpful information.  Tony



#7
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I agree that it is really more of a question of insurance...Merco has a point in that the filter may cause more damage than without it as he experienced.  I had the opposite situation where the filter was damaged and saved the lens.  I have certainly seen more examples of the filter saving the lens than damaging the lens, but it could certainly happen either way.  Funny as I was thinking about this exact topic earlier this week.  I have yet to purchase any filters for my Nikon 1 10-100 lens and I was thinking that I probably should get a protective filter (NC, UV, 1A) and a CP filter for it.  I really wished I'd had the CP for the shots of Mount Pilot that I was shooting.  Oh well...I guess I will have to jump on B&H this week and see what I can find...



#8
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
I watched a video recently done by, I think, tony Northrup, in which he takes a cheap 50mm lens and try's pretty hard to damage it. He tapped on it with things and not just lightly. He literally tried to damage the lens. Now, when he was done, there were some minor blemishes. But since they were on the outer glass, they didn't show up in any images.

When I first started shooting, I let the salesman talk me into some pretty expensive uv filters for my lenses for "protection". After doing a lot of reading on the subject, I no longer buy them, nor do I use the ones I bought.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: uv, haze, filter