-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
uv or not uv? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter roywez67
- Start date
BodyResults
Well-known member
For bird photography and wildlife in general in most situations you don't want to use any filters.
If someone suggests using it for front element protection a hood is a better option.
If someone suggests using it for front element protection a hood is a better option.
Hor Kee
Penang birder
Then again it depends. If you want the best results with a filter, then get the best quality ones. If you're better off without, then don't use them. I have found filters still necessary despite lens hoods (I use the 400 5.6 with a built-in hood). Best used to protect the front element from sea spray which the hood of my lens simply won't help.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Every filter will degrade the IQ to some extent, obviously the better ones less so than cheaper ones. I have tried a good quality one with a 400/5.6 and it certainly degrades IQ. Whereas the same filter on a 17-40 does not seem to effect IQ at all, longer focal lengths seem to magnify any flaws in the extra glass. After many tests with these filters I would never use one on a telephoto lens myself that's for sure. Most people seem to agree with this although if you were shooting in a very exposed situation then it would give you some protection.
If you do get a filter then just try to some tests yourself - mount the kit on a tripod and shoot several shots from the same distance/target both with and without the filter. If you cannot see any difference then carry-on using it - my betting is that you certainly will see a difference but some people are prepared to take a slight hit for peace of mind.
If you do get a filter then just try to some tests yourself - mount the kit on a tripod and shoot several shots from the same distance/target both with and without the filter. If you cannot see any difference then carry-on using it - my betting is that you certainly will see a difference but some people are prepared to take a slight hit for peace of mind.
Upland Birder
Birding On The Edge
Ive read that uv filters are useful in landscape photography.
Dean:t:
Dean:t:
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Chasville,
B&W is a brand of rather high quality filters.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
Chasville
Member
I was taught in a Junior High photography class that it is a good idea to put a filter on the front of a lens to protect the lens. I was also taught that a good general purpose filter is the UV filter, since it reduces that invisible light load on the film and it reduces distance bluing somewhat.
Recently, when using my Nikon D300 + 105mm macro lens to take some pictures of some flowers. I noticed that the color in the pictures was off. The flowers had subtle buish hints in them that was being lost. So, I tried again without any filter, and waza, the color was spot on. I did some more experiments and have concluded that for the pictures I tend to take, on my 105 macro and 50-500 zoom, I don't really need the UV, but I still want a filter. So, I will be getting some clear B&W filters with the nano coatings.
Recently, when using my Nikon D300 + 105mm macro lens to take some pictures of some flowers. I noticed that the color in the pictures was off. The flowers had subtle buish hints in them that was being lost. So, I tried again without any filter, and waza, the color was spot on. I did some more experiments and have concluded that for the pictures I tend to take, on my 105 macro and 50-500 zoom, I don't really need the UV, but I still want a filter. So, I will be getting some clear B&W filters with the nano coatings.
iveljay
Well-known member
Some early colour films were excessively UV sensitive, however modern films and digital sensors are not overly sensitive to UV and as you have found out they can cause their own problems.
The following is a light hearted video test from Digital Review on the subject.
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A
If you do feel you need a UV filter they do come in various strengths as well as qualities so you need to do a bit of research.
The following is a light hearted video test from Digital Review on the subject.
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A
If you do feel you need a UV filter they do come in various strengths as well as qualities so you need to do a bit of research.
Tim Taylor
work in progress
The picture quality with a high quality filter on my 100-400mm was significantly degraded. Lens protection is well served by using the hood when the lens cap is off.
