ND & UV Filters

Stephen P

Just a quick question about Neutral Density and UV filters...

I got myself a ND4 filter mainly for shooting long exposures in water, when using it would I need to remove the UV filter to get the proper effect? Or does it really matter?

Ballyman

It doesn't really matter but I would remove it as the more glass you have in front of the lens the higher xhance of degrading the image sharpness. A UV filter actually serves no purpose anyway in relation to filtering and is used in the main to protect the lens which makes no sense putting a €20 piece of glass on the front of an expensive lens

Ballyman

Ballyman wrote: »

to protect the lens which makes no sense putting a €20 piece of glass on the front of an expensive lens

Have been using my Sigma 70-200 without a filter for a few weeks, but bought one online last week (yet to receive it).

I can't imagine any filter will degrade image quality by much, and I'd rather replace a €20 piece of glass than a lens.

Only UV filter issues I've had was with a cheapo filter I got on eBay a while ago (it was less than a fiver). It's grand, but can't be used in awkward lighting as it creates a lot of ghosting and flare.

Paulw

I have Hoya Pro-1 UV filters on all my lenses. So far, I've never had a single scratch on my actual lens, but have had to replace a filter. Much cheaper that way.

Cheapo filters can degrade the quality of your photo, but shouldn't do it by much. The better the quality, the less of an issue it is.

All down to personal choice really. Many do use UV filters, some don't.

For me though, I normally replace the UV filter with the ND. No specific reason why, and I can't see any reason why you couldn't just attach the ND to the UV.

Trial and error is the best way to find out what works best for you.

Ballyman

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't imagine any filter will degrade image quality by much, and I'd rather replace a €20 piece of glass than a lens.

You spend €600 on a lens and then put a €20 piece of glass in front of it? Obviously it's your choice but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

CabanSail

Ballyman wrote: »

You spend €600 on a lens and then put a €20 piece of glass in front of it? Obviously it's your choice but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

I too put UV Filters on my lenses for protection. They cost me a fair bit more than €20 though. The only lens I don't have one for is my nifty fifty as the filter there would be a large amount of the cost of replacement.

I have had two filters lay down their lives to save that of a lens so far.

Anyway ..... best to take the UV off when putting on the ND as on some lenses stacking them will cause vignetting.

Ballyman

Ballyman wrote: »

You spend €600 on a lens and then put a €20 piece of glass in front of it? Obviously it's your choice but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

Pretty much. Too cash strapped at the moment to splash out on a high end UV filter, but If I notice much degradation of image quality I can always just remove the filter.


I can't imagine it having any real affect at all. I think the whole image quality thing is blown massively out of proportion, though. I've yet to see any results, online or in reality, where a filter has made any noticeable change to a lens quality (except where glare or ghosting is caused in use of awkward/direct lighting. I imagine most uses, outside of gigs or sunsets, etc. would be fine).

Promac

If it's just for protection get a lens hood - they'll take much more abuse and if you do drop the camera enough to break anything you won't have shards of glass from a UV filter bouncing off your expensive lens.

NakedDex

I have UV filters for most of my lenses, but I try to avoid using them. I've noticed quality degradation in even the B&W filter I paid and arm and a leg for on my 80-200, and some vignetting on my 15-30.
Generally, they'll stay on the lens until such time as I think I'm safe enough without them. I'd rather have a shot with slight chromatic abberation when cropped tight, than a damaged lens. I've come close enough to it happening twice. But for a filter, I might have had a more costly problem.

Paulw

I almost always have a lens hood on. But, some lens hoods are very shallow, especially UWA lenses. So, a UV filter helps protect that front element.

Also, some lenses are not weather sealed without having a front UV filter.

Mind you, if lens makers didn't think you have a need for a UV filter, why do they make them?? Both Canon and Nikon make filters, although most people tend to buy other brands like Hoya and Tiffen.

Promac

Paulw wrote: »

Mind you, if lens makers didn't think you have a need for a UV filter, why do they make them??

I'm only saying to use the lens hood if you're only using the filter for protecting the lens. If you're out shooting landscapes on a sunny day then use the UV by all means. Again though - if it's just for protection then your lens hood is generally a much better option.

Paulw

Promac wrote: »

If you're out shooting landscapes on a sunny day then use the UV by all means.

A UV filter won't have any effect, sunny or dull. A UV filter should actually have almost no impact on your photos at all, since it should be clear, and only block UV light, which your camera sensor already filters out.

On a sunny day, you'd be better off using an ND grad filter or a polarizing filter.

Cameraman

Stephen P wrote: »

Just a quick question about Neutral Density and UV filters...

I got myself a ND4 filter mainly for shooting long exposures in water, when using it would I need to remove the UV filter to get the proper effect? Or does it really matter?

Shouldn't affect the basic operation. However, you may get some vignetting if you're using a wide-angle lens, and you may also increase the chances of flare.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

Mind you, if lens makers didn't think you have a need for a UV filter, why do they make them??

They'd make lens-mountable dreamcatchers if they thought people would buy them.

dinneenp

I'd like to buy a cheap ND 10 filter as I'd take a 'few' shots with it but not a while lot I'd imagine. Anyone recommend any online stores?

CabanSail

dinneenp wrote: »

I'd like to buy a cheap ND 10 filter

When you say ND10 .... do you really mean a filter with a bit over 3 stops?

The convention is NDX where X is the divisor for the light. ie. a ND2 is 1/2 the light or One Stop. ND8 is 1/8 and equals 3 Stops.

What I imagine you mean is a 10 Stop ND Filter. The good ones are very expensive but there is cheap option. You can use a piece of Welding Glass Filter, which will only pass "about" 1/1000 of the light, which "about" 10 Stops. These will often have a colour cast, which will need correction in the RAW conversion. You will also need to rig a method to attach the filter. Some use the Cokin Frames or Lee Frames to do this.

eBay Seller

Or just go to Hong Kong via eBay;

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/52mm-Neutral-Density-Filter-ND-ND2-ND4-ND8-fo-Nikon-Bwo-/250686721847?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item3a5e17cf37

eBay Seller wrote:

ND2: reduce one gear of the aperture, average transmittance of 50%
ND4: reduce two gear of the aperture, average transmittance of 25%
ND8: reduce three gear of the aperture, average transmittance of 12.5%