Lens caps can be attached to them. The XS-Pro line is my easy filter choice when standard thickness filter rings cause vignetting. Relatively new to the market, Breakthrough Photography's UV filters feature a thin 3. The filters' frames are specifically designed for increased traction, greatly easing mounting and removal, even under challenging conditions including with gloves.
Usually, stacking filters over a protection filter is not a good idea. While you may not notice any image degradation with a single high quality filter attached, those odds decrease with additional glass placed in the optical path.
Flare is again the primary concern. Take your UV filter off before attaching a circular polarizing filter or neutral density filter to your lens. The alternate filter will provide the needed protection for your lens.
The only time I can remember stacking a filter over a UV filter was when I was shooting in heavy salt water spray. I wanted to be able to remove a polarizer without the salt water reaching my front lens element.
Why does it matter where you buy filters? The biggest reason can be summed up with one word: Counterfeit. With filters being rather easy to counterfeit, I suggest purchasing them only from a reputable retailer to insure that you are getting the filter you expect.
Those retailers I list below are my top recommendations and my own choice , though care must be taken if using a 3rd party reseller on Amazon. I suggest using a protection filter in most cases. Buy a quality UV, clear or skylight filter and leave it on your lens. Put one on your lens and enjoy the peace of mind it brings. I'll leave you with one last tip — Be sure to know how to remove a stuck lens filter. Bringing you this site is my full-time job typically hours per week.
Thus, I depend solely on the commissions received from you using the links on this site to make any purchase. I am grateful for your support! Hailing from the days of film, UV filters aren't usually used for their originally intended purpose anymore. This is because digital sensors don't have the same level of sensitivity to UV as film. This means that UV filters can simply be used as one of the best protection filters instead.
Skylight filters are another alternative that come from the film camera era. Skylight filters were originally used to warm up images with a pink, orange or magenta hue, prevent images from having a blue tint and deliver natural colors. Again, these filters aren't quite as necessary as they used to be, so they make some of the best protection filters now. No matter what variety you'd like to invest in, you can discover the best protection filters, UV filters and skylight filters below….
Japanese optical excellence yet affordability is one of the core pitches for this slimline protective UV filter.
Naturally the multi-coated glass here prevents the harmful effect of UV rays and eliminates haze that can result in a blu-ish cast. Part of Amazon's "AmazonBasics" range, this UV protective filter will suit everyone who doesn't mind using a bit of kit with "Basics" written on it in bright white letters.
The thread range only goes down to 52mm, while others on this list go down to 37mm, so make sure to double-check your lens before hitting the "Buy" button, but otherwise, you're good to go here.
Covering all bases then, this is a multi-purpose fine-weather filter available in a broad range of sizes from 37mm up to 95mm incrementally increasing in price. Manufactured using heat-resistant tempered glass, the multi-coated surface is said to suppress ghosting, flare and reflections whilst increasing light transmission. This top-of-range protective UV filter is aimed at users of the latest-generation digital cameras boasting high megapixel counts — and with a bigger price tag to match.
It has an anti-static top layer that is water repellent, stain and scratch resistant, while any smudges or fingerprints are easily wiped clean. Certainly, for most photographers in most situations, UV and clear filters are a waste of money Who's talking about most photographers?
Or even most lenses? I have filters on like 2 of my 8 or 9 lenses, the two I'd use in those conditions. Or do you think some of us are lying when we say we shoot in areas with dust, salt water, etc in the air? Or is it that you think that kinda thing won't scratch a lens? Because I can tell you from first hand experience with my phone that a spec of sand will scratch even Corning gorilla glass way easier than keys or things people tend to fear more sometimes.
You're the one who brought up "real world scenarios," most of which offer no threat to a lens that a clear or UV filter would do anything to prevent. The fact remains that, for most photographers in most situations, buying and using filters to protect your lenses is a waste of money. The filter will be damaged or destroyed long before any damage would occur to the lens. You're the one that brought up a bogus test with little semblance to how a lens is ever commonly damaged.
I made no claim about where or how the "average photographer" shoots so please don't put words in my mouth. I simply brought up a scenario that's common for me and others I'm near the beach at least once a month, the luxury of living where I do, wiping sand and salt water spray off a lens can and will scratch it eventually.
You're free to deny that until you're blue in the face but you'll look pretty silly. That's my reality, it's common enough for me, and a filter will totally prevent it from happening to the lens. The tests Perry performs demonstrate quite clearly that, in a worst-car scenario, a lens filter will be damaged or destroyed long before a lens - either the front element or the housing - will be damaged. His years also clearly show that there are scenarios where damaging the front "protective" filter frame can damage the lens housing.
Bottom line In many scenarios, the impact that would damage a front filter would have no damaging effect on a lens. Most people buy protective filters to protect lenses from hard knocks or so they think More knowledgeable people buy protective filters to protect them from scratches in harsh conditions. Bill - I like this guy's approach. But it has nothing to do with why most people use clear filters. We're looking for something to deflect the odd rock coming at an angle which might scratch my lens and probably will scratch my filter.
Better to sacrifice the filter. Or I'm using a filter that is anti-smudge and very quick and easy to clean so that when I do get a splash or splat, it comes of very easily or if it is hard to remove, I'm only dealing with a filter instead of my lens elements. One thing that stands out for me from his test is that a filter is really a perfect situation for breakage while a lens is not.
Lenses are curved which creates strength and housed in frames that are going to absorb impact whereas filters are in a perfect frame for creating leverage and breakage. I thought what I brought up wasn't relevant because it didn't apply to the "average photographer", but now a worst case scenario that few ever see is somehow more relevant?
What do I know tho, maybe the "average photographer" does fend off fastballs with his lens at least once a lifetime. He debunked bupkis because the scenario is anything but common so there's nothing that relates to "many times" in it.
Slight scratches are much more common that the kinda gratuitous impact he shot for extra views, nobody has ever denied at least nobody with sense than in a true worst case scenario the filter might not do much and might actually do more harm. There's a whole range of scenarios and swatch of real life besides the one obscure worst case tho. The whole point of setting up the test impacts as a progression from a relatively modest hit to a heavy duty impact is to give the filter every opportunity to demonstrate that it provides some degree of protection.
And the methodology Perry used was actually quite sound. The conditions were repeatable and consistent for both the bare lenses and for those with "protective" filters. The results were clear: the filters were less able to withstand the force of impact. They were damaged by impacts that did no damage to the naked front elements and, in some instances, deformed in a manner that caused damage to the lens.
In other words, the lens would have fared better had no filter been in place. Feel free to continue arguing semantics in an effort to distract from the facts, if you wish. It doesn't matter.
You can't undo the test results. If you really want to present a persuasive case for the benefits of a prophylactic filter in certain scenarios, design a test, conduct it, record and report the results.
How is bringing up sand and other fine particulate equivalent to arguing semantics? There's nothing about the test that simulates light scratches or proves that the front element is any more impervious to it and they very well may be, I'd still rather replace a filter than a front element on a lens that's constantly exposed to sand You do understand that forceful impacts and abrasion scratches are two completely different scenarios right?
I've never had something solid and bolt like impact a lens, I've gotten sand, dirt, and salt water more times than I care to count. If that's me distracting anyone from the facts then I guess I'm just all kinds of distracting! It doesn't matter, you can't change the collective experience of loads of people that shoot under the same conditions. If you really want to propose that test mirrors a common scenario I'd love to know under what kinda conditions you're usually shooting.
Bill - interesting that you came to these conclusions. I don't think the conclusions are inclusive as much as exclusive. IE, he's only testing one mode of failure which is a direct force, concentrated at the center of the lens and normal to the film plane. So we're dealing with the greatest strength of a front lens element. What about other situations? A glance from a rock or even blowing sand can easily scratch or even chip a lens - we've all had this happen.
I'd like to see tests that deal with this and appropriate conclusions. But again, I don't think many people are under illusions here. The majority of folks seem to loath cleaning their lens and prefer instead to clean filters that are designed for easy cleaning. Lenses don't always clean well. And as a reminder - you're the one who started this battle - the LR article wasn't arguing for or against protective filters as I recall.
He was only showing what they do when you use them. For the naysayers, the most common ingredient in sand beach or inland is quartz silica. From personal experience, I've never dropped or otherwise smashed a filter, but there have absolutely been occasions where I was happy to have some minor damage occur to the filter rather than the lens.
Having a filter means I don't have to worry so much about babying my lens's front element and can just worry about getting great pictures. I'm not even arguing for widespread filter use either, I dunno why so many arguments are boiled down to an all or nothing proposition zooms or primes, crop or FF, etc etc It's like he's arguing with an idea instead of what's being written.
I commented several times even before Bill posted that test than in a worst case scenario a filter could very well make things worse and be fatal; so could falling on the lens, dropping it off a cliff, or dropping it on it's side tho. Frankly I think fitting a filter to every single lens if you own more than a handful is madness, there's no way you take them out all at once and shoot them all in equally harsh conditions, nor are they all likely worth it.
What's to debate? Yeah sure, that's daft and I can't imagine justifying it. Bill "The filter will be damaged or destroyed long before any damage would occur to the lens". BadScience and Bill - but he even showed scenarios where the filter DID protect the lens from being broken. How do you account for that? This was a very narrow test scenario. As one who has had a cracked lens, I can say that there is question in my mind as to what can be deferred from the test.
I don't see how the test equates to "protective filters are a waste of money. Wow, I didn't see that coming And it shows that: 1. A low impact that doesn't break the filter would not damage the front element in any way without filter.
A strong impact that damages a lens would not be lessened by a filter and the front element is not the most fragile part. An impact in-between those two will crash a filter and would leave undamaged the front element without filter. The filter can block sand, grit or other particles in the air from getting near your lens.
This is especially so if your lens filter has a multi-resistant coating. A UV lens filter also offers protection in windy conditions. It acts as a buffer, keeping wind-borne substances such as sea spray, grit or sand from going near your lens. Some people believe that using lens filters negatively affects image quality, but it really depends on the quality of the lens filter. For this reason, you can keep a UV filter on your lens permanently.
You may see a reduction in image quality if you decide to stack multiple lens filters onto your lens, because light is passing through extra layers of glass. If you use an old-school film camera, a UV lens filter will block out UV light from the film, especially useful when using film stock that might be particularly sensitive to UV light.
Modern digital cameras typically post have an inbuilt sensor that automatically keeps UV light at bay. However, even photographers using modern cameras note that a UV filter can still reduce haze and sharpen an image. It can also help to boost contrast on overcast days or shooting when shadows are present.
0コメント