Check your filters . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

Out yesterday with the Sigma 10-12, very bright, low winter sun. I was not happy with the results, compared with the previous outing, although the conditions were totally different. It was also interesting to have Hazels D40X/18-70 pictures to compare with, as well as my own 70-300 shots in the Docks.

 

Camera menu settings needed tweaking? They have been OK until recently pre 10-20? Even with menu tweaking, I was not happy . . . what other variables?

 

The only other change is UV filter . . . naaa!!! . . . ?

 

Its a known name . . . a series of shots later, the 'Kenko' UV filter puts a haze over the picture when compared to 'no filter', grabbed a 'Seagull' UV jobie, much better, there is a change but minimal in my humble opinion?

 

Kenco UV

Seagull UV

No UV filter

 

Place the two filters on a sheet of white paper, there is a distinct yellow/grey tinge to the Kenko, this compared to the Seagulls hint of pink. Both colourings are of the lightest huge, almost undetectable.

 

Comparing the above samples, the Seagull is almost like putting a polarising filter on if you look at the glass in the green house and the heightening of colour. Final testing will be on a sunny day, but its obviouse I've got a lot more to com from my 10-20. Have to hunt a Hoya 77mm UV/Sky? down, although I think the Seagull works OK?? Both comparison lenses yesterday had 'Sky' filters by Hama and Hoya. Just shows, cant take anything for granted.

 

SW

Edited February 15, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[Peter Waller]

Personally I wouldn't use a U.V. filter, horrible things! It is so easy to correct colour on your p.c. so why stick another, rather pointless piece of glass in front of your lens? Even coated filters can cause reflections between lens and filter, and thus degrade the image.

[John S]

On the other hand though, they do help protect the front of the lens from damage....

[ayjay]

On the other hand though, they do help protect the front of the lens from damage....

 

How many damaged UV filters have you replaced?

[Westie]

How many damaged UV filters have you replaced?

 

It's an age old debate - UV or not UV - that is the question.

 

I do UV - I've never had to replace a damaged one, but I have had half a dozen occasions where I'm glad I had used one. Mostly involving my 4 year old prodding the lens for fun when I'm taking photos right up close. On one occasion on a beach, taking photos of Pip throwing handfuls of sand, she ran at me unexpectedly and thought it would be fun to throw a big dollop of sand at me. I was happier cleaning the cr@p off the filter than I would have been off the front element.

 

I've never noticed any degredation in picture quality, so I'll keep on using them for the time being. I don't stack them when using a polariser though. Risk of flare is too much.