12-17-2012 05:53 PM
I'm looking at getting a clear UV filter for my lens and am unfamiliar with the top brands that won't degrade the image quality. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
05-24-2014 06:15 PM
@Vetteran wrote:Quite. Your picture will be degraded. Use a lens hood, lens cap and take a litttle care, it's not diifficult.
In 60 years I've not had a problem because of the afore mentioned.
A Polarizing filter - now that could be beneficial.
But still I'm loathe to add another two air-to-lens surfaces.
It's an amusing stance. Modern day zoom lenses have 15+ high precision curved elements with various coating and you're worried about a single flat piece of glass.
I haven't been shooting 60 years, nor do I lend you any credibility because you have. But in the time I've been shooting and using filters I've never once had an image ruiined because of it So I'll keep using them.
Regardless, I know I'm not going to convince you, nor you me. It's a long tired discussion on these forums hence my earlier recommendations to just let it go. However, telling someone that something they just bought is a waste of money is just low class. I don't agree with a lot of equipment people choose to use and discuss on here, and I'll gladly give my recommendations when asked. But once they buy it I'm not going to rub their nose in my opinion of it.
05-25-2014 01:38 AM - edited 05-25-2014 05:23 AM
I did not say nor imply "ruined".
You chose to ignore the advice so you did waste your money.
It's not opinion about adding glass, it's physics.
Maybe you are not bothered by the difference or cannot see it.
As mentioned before, if you like a filter for protection,
then use something that can have an effect.
05-25-2014 11:04 AM
05-25-2014 11:20 AM
05-25-2014 03:30 PM
05-26-2014 01:38 PM
"In 60 years I've not had a problem because of the afore mentioned."
The only thing this proves is you haven't had a problem for 60 years. It proves nothing else or has anything to do with anybodies else's experience.
Sometimes 60 years people can learn alot for 6 years people and even 6 months people!
05-26-2014 02:04 PM
You are confused, who said anything about proof?
Just evidence.
Still does not alter the fact that a digital camera does not need a UV filter.
05-26-2014 05:13 PM
“You are confused, ...”
Who said anything about the camera needing the filter? I thought the filter was for the lens?
“Just evidence.”
Yes, maybe but another poster had a different experience. Your “evidence” is not more important than his.
05-27-2014 01:27 AM
No, the lens does not need the filter - it's for the benefit, or otherwise, of what is behind it.
05-27-2014 09:21 AM - edited 05-27-2014 09:21 AM
Again, my friend, you digress. Not if the filter was purchased for protection.
“Also thinking about a clear protection filter, instead of uv. “
“I've been through 4 UV filters, two of which unquestionably saved the lens ...”
Oh and, BTW, the coffee parable was great.
01/27/2025: New firmware updates are available.
12/18/2024: New firmware updates are available.
EOS C300 Mark III - Version 1..0.9.1
EOS C500 Mark II - Version 1.1.3.1
12/05/2024: New firmware updates are available.
EOS R5 Mark II - Version 1.0.2
09/26/2024: New firmware updates are available.
EOS R6 Mark II - Version 1.5.0
Canon U.S.A Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited.