Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UV Filter Needed?

harleymhs

harleymhs

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 19, 2009
790
176
Hey Guys, I want to get the new Hoya HD2 filter for my D610, I currently have a UV filter on it and I do see some differences when I have it on and when I dont have it on.. Some people say with DSLR's you dont need it as much as a film SLR.. So my question is should I order the HD2 Protector Filter which is multi coated or the UV version of the HD2 filter? Thanks!!!
 
harleymhs said:
Hey Guys, I want to get the new Hoya HD2 filter for my D610, I currently have a UV filter on it and I do see some differences when I have it on and when I dont have it on.. Some people say with DSLR's you dont need it as much as a film SLR.. So my question is should I order the HD2 Protector Filter which is multi coated or the UV version of the HD2 filter? Thanks!!!
Click to expand...

Well I would, because whatever the benefits in IQ, it will also act as a protector for the front of your lens. Much easier to replace a filter than get a scratch off your front lens glass element.
Also I use the Hoya brand and would recommend them.
No good for my 14-24mm or 10.5mm fish eye. I just have to be super careful with those.
 
Apple fanboy said:
Well I would, because whatever the benefits in IQ, it will also act as a protector for the front of your lens. Much easier to replace a filter than get a scratch off your front lens glass element.
Also I use the Hoya brand and would recommend them.
No good for my 14-24mm or 10.5mm fish eye. I just have to be super careful with those.
Click to expand...

I WANT the filter, and USE one NOW, my question was with UV or JUST the HD2 Protector version.. thanks!
 
My understanding is that the digital sensor doesn't really benefit from a UV filter in the way that a film camera might (as you note in your original post). So it seems that a neutral clear/protector filter is all you need.

But if you think you can see the difference with a UV filter, there is probably no harm (beyond that inherent in using any filter) in using that one (assuming multicoating, etc. is the same between the two).
 
Digital cameras/lenses in general don't need UV filters. However, as some remain advocates for filters as lens protection, it pays to get the best glass you can afford that has minimal optical qualities that degrade your image taking capabilities.

Hoya makes 'okay' UV type filters but you might want to invest in something more like B+W filters (particularly their middle to higher end line).

There are of course other makers that also make excellent filters and B+W is the first that came to mind.

Just be aware that certain lenses, though they can take a filter on the front, can be degraded rather easily with the added filter with respect to creating light diffraction/flair/obstruction of edges of frame etc. As for me, I use filters on some lenses as protection and a "sock" style lens cover rather than lens caps that may fall off (sometimes this is more common with added filters).
 
Personal choice I guess. I can tell you my experience. I stopped using them years ago and on some lenses I can tell a difference...as in I like the results better without a filter (I still use a ND filter sometimes). I can say that I'm pretty rough on my gear and expose lenses to lots of scratchable situations. In all the years I've only scratched one lens and it had no effect on images. I've cracked the housing of a lens, a body, and cracked an LCD cover but that's it.

It should also be noted that I don't have a kit full of $2k+ lenses
 
Just bought the Hoya HD2 I didn't get the uv I got the protector version! In my past I used my d610 with no filter and noticed a small difference when I used a uv filter! So I don't want yo go naked just bought a tamron lens for 1000 don't want to take a chance! Thanks for all your replies
 
A good UV filter does nothing positive for a digital sensor. A bad filter (any type) can wreck the recorded image.

In general you only need a good polarizer and a good ND (or VND). The rest of the filters make expensive drink coasters.
 
Anything that can break your UV filter can (and will) also break your front element.

The best protect for your lens (with respect to impact damage) is a hood.
 
Edge100 said:
Anything that can break your UV filter can (and will) also break your front element.

The best protect for your lens (with respect to impact damage) is a hood.
Click to expand...

Amen! Also a filter does zero to address flare....and a hood does.
 
UV and plain glass are one and the same to digital cameras.
Personally I don't use either of them as they damage image quality and the front element is extremely durable to begin with.
 
AlaskaMoose said:
UV does nothing for digital.
Click to expand...

Of course this is true. The filter is clear and does not change the image.

But people like it because t keeps the front of the lens clean. The only problem is that a really good filter costs maybe $35. The poor quality filters degrade the image. So is it worth $35 to have a clear lens cap?
 
MCAsan said:
A good UV filter does nothing positive for a digital sensor. A bad filter (any type) can wreck the recorded image.

In general you only need a good polarizer and a good ND (or VND). The rest of the filters make expensive drink coasters.
Click to expand...

Well, the UV or protector filters are often useful in wet or dusty environments. I know some lenses, like the Canon 17-40 f/4 are not sealed unless you use a filter on the front.

As a general rule, I don't use UV or protector filters either, except in wet or dusty environments. On the other hand, I'll use a polarizer or VND filter a lot, especially with landscapes.
 
Agreed. There are times and places, such as Upper Antelope Canyon, that you want a weather proof camera body and lens. For most folks such times and places are the rare exception.

That is one thing I love about my weather sealed Olympus E-M1 and their Pro lenses. You can use them standing in a shower of rain. You just want to use a hood to keep water off the front lens element.
 
I use Hoya HMC UV(c) filters on my lenses and I've never noticed the difference (which is why I choose those). I don't buy the protector filters as they tend to cost a few pounds more and the HMC ones seem good enough. I tend to agree that extra UV filtering is not required on digital cameras.
 
leighonigar said:
I use Hoya HMC UV(c) filters on my lenses and I've never noticed the difference (which is why I choose those). I don't buy the protector filters as they tend to cost a few pounds more and the HMC ones seem good enough. I tend to agree that extra UV filtering is not required on digital cameras.
Click to expand...

I see you are correct, I wonder why the protector filters are a bit more than UV ones.. Figured it would be the other way around.. Cost more to put an extra UV coating on it.. ?
 
harleymhs said:
I see you are correct, I wonder why the protector filters are a bit more than UV ones.. Figured it would be the other way around.. Cost more to put an extra UV coating on it.. ?
Click to expand...

I've not investigated. Hoya do make a better series than the 'HMC' UV ones, the Pro 1 IIRC, so I'm sure the protectors could be more nicely made. I suspect however that when the digital era came in they were keen to sell a load more (and more expensive) filters to digital converts, hence the 'protector' filters, which I do not recall being so widely available before. A few years down the line they perhaps remain a way of Hoya making a few more pounds/dollars from the willing while not losing the cheaper end of the market (me) who still buys their cheaper UV line.
 
MCAsan said:
Agreed. There are times and places, such as Upper Antelope Canyon, that you want a weather proof camera body and lens. For most folks such times and places are the rare exception.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention upper Antelope Canyon. I was there a couple years ago taking shots in the slot canyons. There was a windstorm above, and lots of sand showered from above. The grit got into my 17-40 lens and I had to send it to Canon for cleaning and repair. I don't think even a filter would have helped!
 
Fully understand that. The first time we were in the canyon we had sand pouring in on us. We were shooting with Tamron 18-270 lenses which gave us a wide range of shots. Those lens had to go to Tamron for a rebuild. We ended up trading them in the for the second version of that lens. :D
 
Did the Indians take you in on the 4x4s like this?

5813157338_91b52b1677_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back