Use Clear og UV filter?

[eiler m]

Is it advisable to use a CLEAR filter in digital photography instead of an UV filter, for instance when not taking landscape pictures with distant objects? I use a camera with an APC-S sensor.

[rpcrowe]

I generally don't use a protective filter at all, except in certain instances. The instances in which I will use a protective filter are times in which the lens might be in harms way - such as during blowing dust. I will also use a protective filters when the weather proofing of the lens requires the use of a filter.

However, I always use a lens hood - indoors and out. IMO, the hood provides some physical protection for the lens as well as protection against some flare. I am also quite careful regarding how I handle my lenses...

That said - the above is not carved in granite but, when I do use a filter, I ensure that the filter is one of the better quality brands such as B+W or Hoya Multi-Coated so that the filter will cause the least deterioration of my image quality possible...

In answer to your question - I don't think that you would see any great difference between a "clear" protective filter and a UV filter on a digital camera...

[pschlute]

Is it advisable to use a CLEAR filter in digital photography instead of an UV filter, for instance when not taking landscape pictures with distant objects? I use a camera with an APC-S sensor.

+1 to everything richard said.

Nice camera with a lovely lens on it.... why put another piece of glass in front of it that may degrade the image through flare.

[xpatUSA]

I have two Sigma compact cameras; one is quite heavy and is hard to hold firmly due to it's shape, rectangular with no grip. So I elected to use a protective filter "just in case". After much research, I chose the Hoya UV (0). Haven't notice any more flare than without a filter, but generally I don't include bright objects in the frame. I notice very slightly more contrast with filter on and a slightly darker sky.

LensTip has compared a number of UV filters, including flare tests. My Hoya was chosen the "best":

https://www.lenstip.com/113.15-artic..._HMC_UV-0.html

I don't bother with protective filters on my ILCs because they are less likely to get dropped, I rarely travel with them and of course all my lenses have different filter diameters. Just too much trouble for this old man ...

For IR photography, I find the various wavelength lens filters very useful.

[Manfred M]

I can get clumsy when I get out and "in the zone" during a shoot, so sticking my finger into the front of a lens is certainly something I do from time to time. Cleaning a clear or UV filter is usually faster and easier than cleaning the front element of the lens. If I happen to stick my finger into the lens and it has a filter, I can just remove it and keep on shooting and worry about cleaning the filter when I have time.

If you get a high quality filter, especially a multi-coated one, then the degradation you see in an image will be negligible in most circumstances. I know some photographers that uses them all the time and others that try to never use them. I tend to be in the middle, there are times where I will use them (wet, dusty or dirty environments) and other times (back-lit subjects, night photography) where I try to not use them. The one thing to consider, even with multi-coated filters; these were not designed for your specific lens and lens reflection and veiling flare tend to be worse than using no filter.

There is no need to use a UV filter when shooting a digital camera, as the sensor stack has both a UV and IR filter built in. That being said, I have found that clear filters can be more expensive than UV ones, so using a UV filter will not have a negative impact on your image any more than a clear one will.

For certain types of photography I will replace the clear / UV filter with a polarizer and just leave it in place. Fortunately, most of my lenses have a 77mm filter thread, so the same filter can be shared across lenses. I have four polarizers, so when I do go out on a shoot, I will put one on each lens and that way I don't lose time screwing and unscrewing filters as well as changing lenses.

That being said, I own four lenses that are not equipped with filter threads, so I am more careful with these. The lens hood are built in on two of them, so these add some protection. The other two lenses I have to be more careful with.

[DanK]

I think Eiler's question was (1) whether to use a clear protective filter rather than a UV, not (2) whether to use any protective filter.

With respect to question (1), I don't think it makes any difference. UV is already filtered by the time light hits the sensor. I use both, but I often buy clear filters just because they are cheaper. What DOES clearly matter is the quality of the filter.

With respect to question (2), you can find countless arguments about this on the web, most backed by no data whatever. I tend to use filters when I don't have a reason not to. I have ruined a few filters but have never damaged the front element of a lens. In at least one case, I have no idea whatever how some gunk that I could not clear off got smeared onto a filter that I threw away. I never use one when I will have a point light source in front of me, so I never use them when doing night photography. I generally don't use them in studio macro because there is no need for protection in that circumstance. I use one 100% of the time when doing field macro, when I am routinely bringing the lens within cm of the subject. (Ironically, I have never ruined the glass surface of a filter doing macro, but I have partially ground away the aluminum casing by using it as a point of support when photographing bugs on a wooden surface).

I use only reputable brands of multicoated filters My default has become Marumi, but I have several Hoyas and one or two B+W. the one exception is that two cheap filters with a brand name I didn't recognize came bundled with one of my lenses. I put a resolution chart on a wall and took pairs of shots with and without the filter. I threw out the CPL, but the UV created no noticeable degradation, so I have been using it.

[rpcrowe]

As far as lens protection goes. I have personal experience that a screw-in lens hood can help protect a lens. I fell one day having my Canon DSLR camera,hanging around my neck with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens hitting the tarmac of the road hood first. The hood was toast but, the lens was unharmed and I used the lens for years afterwards with no problems.

I don't know if a protective filter might have afforded such protection but, I doubt it. I also don't know if the traditional OEM Canon hood would have been as successful.

[William W]

I think Eiler's question was (1) whether to use a clear protective filter rather than a UV, not (2) whether to use any protective filter.

I agree with splitting this into two questions and my view agrees with Dan's commentary, I'll add:

In summary all my lenses that allow a Filter to be added to the Lens's Filter Thread, have a UV Filter on them and that is their resting position. I use UV Filters, firstly because in my situation quality UV Filters were/are easier and less expensive to procure and secondly, (a minor reason), some of my lenses are occasionally used to shoot Film. Provided you have a quality filter, I think it doesn't matter whether it is UV or Clear.

Mainly I use Hoya Pro Series, slim profile. The Slim Profile (that's the thickness of the Rim) becomes more important as the FL of the particular Lens becomes wider: for two main reasons. The first is to exclude the likelihood of an Optical Vignette, caused by the Filter itself and secondly, the same reason for any device that might be added to the Inside Filter Threads (i.e. 'stacked', in front of the Filter). Such devices could be a Matt Box or Lens Hood, as two examples.

Given "suitable" lighting/shooting conditions, I have not seen any data proving or even indicating that a quality UV Filter makes any noticeable difference to the Final Image. This is confirmed by my own exhaustive testing and in many cases the resultant Final Images being provided to colleagues for their A/B assessment.

On the other hand, it is very important to understand when and why to remove a Protective Filter.

WHEN -
In summary and as a generalization: if you're shooting into the light and/or have a strong and relatively small light source in what is generally a dark scene, then, it is usually time for "Filter Off".

WHY -
Again in summary and as a generalization, the main three reasons for removing the Filter in the situations described above are:
> Reduce the impact of Flare (i.e. Flare Spots, Streaks)
> Reduce the impact of Veiling Flare
> Reduce the impact of Ghost Images

As another general comment on the topic of screw in Lens Filters: there are very few legitimate reasons to ever 'stack' two Filters on the end of a Lens, so don't. For example if you want to use a Polarizing Filter, then remove the Protective Filter and plonk on the Polarizing Filter.

WW

[Manfred M]

As another general comment on the topic of screw in Lens Filters: there are very few legitimate reasons to ever 'stack' two Filters on the end of a Lens, so don't. For example if you want to use a Polarizing Filter, then remove the Protective Filter and plonk on the Polarizing Filter.

As a generalization, I would agree. A specific case that I will use a stack of multiple filters is when I shoot with neutral density filters (ND) and / or graduated neutral density (GND) filters. It is not at all unusual to stack two or three filters.

Things I have done to get the shot I was trying for includes stacking a combination of ND filters (to build up an appropriate neutral density), a combination of ND and GND as well as throwing a polarizer into the mix when that filter is required. I've done this with both lens mounted round (generally just a ND + polarizer) and more commonly with rectangular filters in a Lee holder (which I have set up to take up to three filters PLUS a large diameter (105mm) polarizer.

I don't think I have ever stacked more than 3 filters and when using this many filters, shooting into the sun is definitely not good. These larger rectangular filters are uncoated and really bump up the veiling flare and other artifacts when pointed into the sun.

[William W]

Yes, I was thinking, "Landscape Photography applications of ND and Grad ND" when I wrote that. I think that, that would be the most common exception in 2019, to the generalization I made.

There are some Scientific/Forensic Photography applications where stacking two Filters is necessary.

In some Black and White (Film) Photography stacking two Filters is (relatively) more common, especially where one is a Contrast Filter.

All of these situations though, are rare for the day to day General Photographer, in 2019.

WW

[eiler m]

Thank you for your messages regarding filter use. I always want to use a filter for protection, and I wondered if a UV-filter had any advantages compared to a CLEAR-filter as it was in analog times when taking slides. My conclusion is now using a "B+W XS-Pro 007 Clear MRC nano" as my standard filter. This article discusses the topic:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/733...r-on-your-lens

[Manfred M]

Thank you for your messages regarding filter use. I always want to use a filter for protection, and I wondered if a UV-filter had any advantages compared to a CLEAR-filter as it was in analog times when taking slides. My conclusion is now using a "B+W XS-Pro 007 Clear MRC nano" as my standard filter. This article discusses the topic:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/733...r-on-your-lens

The article gives very similar advice to what Bill, Dan and I have given. Just to counter Richard's comments, I have an experience here the additional length of the lens hood caused damage to my lens as the hood was caught by a swinging door and it knocked the camera out of my hands and the way the camera dropped resulted in the filter over it breaking and chipping the front element of the lens when it did so.

Had the lens hood not been in place, none of this would have occurred.

[William W]

. . .Thank you for your messages regarding filter use. . .

You're welcome.

***

. . . This article discusses the topic:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/733...r-on-your-lens

And

The article gives very similar advice to what Bill, Dan and I have given. . .

Similar, but not the same. I think it would be worthwhile if this important point is made regarding Filters and Flare

Re the article cited:

1. Regarding the possible effect of a Filter apropos Flare and the exacerbation of Flare, the author defines Flare, however, for his conclusion, the author relies on an assumption that an extra element will not make any difference and data which he has not seen – and (importantly) - it appears implied that no actual testing was done by the author. (My bold and underline for emphasis):

“Is the loss of image quality significant to me? In trying to answer this, there are several different aspects of image quality that need to be considered:
Flare and ghost images. I use the term flare to mean an overall veiling of the image (or parts of the image) due to stray light . . . Both flare and ghost images are caused by unwanted reflections or scattering from the various exposed surfaces within the lens and camera body. The glass surfaces of all the lens elements will contribute, as will the glass surfaces of the filter. Typical modern lenses contain up to 15 or more elements, and the addition of one more element (the filter) is not likely to make much difference in most practical circumstances. I have never seen any convincing evidence that the presence of a good quality filter increases flare to any noticeable extent with ordinary camera lenses."

2. Post#8 in this conversation makes a general claim that Flare may be caused by or exacerbated by using a Filter when shooting towards the light. Importantly - This claim is predicated on a lot of testing done.

A reiteration now of the “WHY” we should generally take a FILTER OFF when shooting toward the light:

“> Reduce the impact of Flare (i.e. Flare Spots, Streaks)
> Reduce the impact of Veiling Flare
> Reduce the impact of Ghost Images”

3. To Point 2 above, here is one pair (of many) A/B Field Test Images which compare and contrast the effect of a Filter apropos Flare.

Image #55681 is FILTER ON



Image #55681 is FILTER OFF


There are three main areas of variance of the Flare Effect in the scene

A) Top left of frame there appears the typical flare streak, notice the “Veil” on those Flare streaks in FILTER ON.

B) Notice the effect of the Veiling Flare on the MID TONE CONTRAST of the Top Left Hand Area of the Tree’s Leaves in FILTER ON.

C) Notice the exacerbation of the Prism Flare in FILTER ON.

Technical Details:
EOS 5DMkII; EF 35 to 135 F/4~5.6; F/4 @ 1/640s @ ISO100; JPEG SOOC resized to 1500 on the long side for web presentation; Hoya Slim Pro Filter.

I have folders of these A/B tests using various lenses, including L Series Lenses, both Primes and Zooms.

My testing has shown me that (obviously?) the amount of Image Degradation caused by Flare when using a Filter compared to not using a Filter varies depending upon each individual situation, however, I have a truckload of samples, using very good quality filters, showing that a Filter certainly can cause or exacerbate Flare and the effects of Flare.

WW

[GSL007]

If your using a digital camera a UV filter has no effect. They only come into there own when using film.

[royent]

I have not yet found a source of clear filters in UK

[Stagecoach]

I have not yet found a source of clear filters in UK

Try London Camera Exchange, they have many branches in the UK and I got a clear protection filter from them last year.

[royent]

Thank you Grahame

[DanK]

Try London Camera Exchange, they have many branches in the UK and I got a clear protection filter from them last year.

Marumi, which is the filter brand I now buy most often, is sold in The UK. Amazon has some of their clear filters. I suspect that you can find other retailers if you search for the brand online.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[William W]

I have not yet found a source of clear filters in UK

Park Cameras have a good range of Filters. I reckon they'd definitely have Clear Filters - and good quality ones, too.

I used Park Cameras when I was working for for the BBC, based in London: the local BBC guys said that the Park Cameras store outside of London city had a bigger range of stuff - but I expect nowadays they do mail order anyway.

I second that you take a look at London Camera Exchange, too, it was just that Park Cameras was easier for me to visit personally.

WW

[DanK]

I just checked, and here is a list of Marumi vendors in the UK: https://www.kenro.co.uk/where_to_buy...stockist_list/. Their clear filters are called DHG Super Lens Protect filters. Hoya also makes clear protective filters, called PRO1 Digital Protector Filters. I don't know what who their UK vendors are. These are the primary brands I use.

It is critically important that any protective filter, whether it is UV protective or not, has good multicoating to reduce flare.