Camera filters: CPL, UV (0)

[lucid]

Camera filters:

A CPL seems like a useful tool for reducing reflections, and from what I've read in research it seems that the cheap filters are not as effective as a Hoya or better make. For someone like me though who just wants to get some decent before and after snaps of installs is there an appreciable difference between a Digital and Non-Digital CPL? The price difference is about another 50% on top (£20 vs £30)


UV (0) vs hood:

Opinions seem divided regarding using a UV (0). Quite a few of the vids I have seen show softer images, less contrast and more internal reflections from using a UV (0). So is a hood a better way to protect the lens? If so, does anyone have any recommendations on what to get that will still allow the lens cap to be used?




Camera: EOS 400D + 18-35 std wide zoom

 

[Snapshot]

You should always use a hood on every lens you own and nearly all lenses come with dedicated hoods these days. If you don't have one for your lens then buy the appropriate one from the auction site. The main purpose of a hood is not to protect the lens but to keep unwanted light from affecting the shot.

Any filter you use needs to have glass and coatings that are the same quality as the lens you're putting it on or it will affect the results. In practice this means a Hoya HMC (or equivalent) or better.

You do not need a UV filter for a digital camera but you can use one or a simple digital protector in addition to the hood. Many don't bother these days but I'm old-fashioned and still have one on every lens.

 

[Dunky]

is there an appreciable difference between a Digital and Non-Digital CPL? The price difference is about another 50% on top (£20 vs £30)

Non digital polariser (also known as a linear polariser) can mess with a DSLR camera's metering system so best to stick with a CPL.

I also use digital protector filters - if you use a decent brand then you shouldn't see any drop in quality. Also agree with the comments regarding a lens hood - definitely worth getting if one isn't included.

 

[lucid]

Non digital polariser (also known as a linear polariser) can mess with a DSLR camera's metering system so best to stick with a CPL.

Thanks for your efforts, but although I am a noobie at the whole DSLR thing even I know that the above is not right. Non-Digital polarisers are not exclusively linear polarisers at all.

Circular polarisers exist because linear polarisers mess up Auto Focus systems. CPLs existed long before DSLRs. If one had a 35mm SLR with AF then a CPL would have been an appropriate choice then just as it is now with AF DSLRs.

The question was "standard CPL vs "Digital" CPL..... What's the additional benefit with the so called "Digital" version or is it simply marketing BS."

 

[glitch]

Non digital polariser (also known as a linear polariser) can mess with a DSLR camera's metering system so best to stick with a CPL.

As he's talking about a CPL it's hardly like to be Linear in the first place.

He's probably seen Hoya's usual 'Pro-1 Digital' branding which just refers the slightly increased quality of that range over the regular ones - probably worth the extra just for the reduced thickness alone.

But yes, you are correct about a Linear Polarising Filter being unsuitable, but not for metering - it's the AF system it wil play havoc with.

 

[lucid]

You should always use a hood ...(SNIP) ... I'm old-fashioned and still have one on every lens.

Thanks, but you've just regurgitated most of what I know and wrote in the first post.

Do you have any actually recommendations of hoods you think are good and worth the extra of something basic off the auction site?

 

[Raymond Lin]

My take

Lens goods are a must, with exceptions*, they are not only useful in reducing flare**, they can also protect the lens from accidental knocks. It is better to have the hood to take the blunt of the knock and fall off than hit the lens for example. Lenses like 24-70 extends when you zoom (reverse in the case of canon's) and the hood protects it when it extends out, when it's at it's most vulnerable.

CP filter, get a circular one, Hoya will be fine. I have one somewhere but don't use it as it is dependant on what you are shooting.

UV filter - this is the voodoo topic of your OP. People say you don't need it, it reduce quality, why spend £1k lens and put a cheap piece of glass in front of it (my £1k glass has £80 filters in front of it), that it does nothing.

Well, I take my photos outdoors, amongst people so I play on the safe side. I rather break a filter thsn a front element. Some lens requires a front filter to be weather sealed (16-35L), and that I don't notice and image quality reduction with them.

If you take photos purely in a controlled environment, ala a studio, then I wouldn't spend money on them.

* exceptions when lens hoods are not needed

When you are shooting somewhere windy, bigger lens, more drag, less steady

When you don't want the bulk.

** When you don't have any flare to worry about or looking for flare, if you are shooting into a light source a lens hood won't reduce any flare.

 

[glitch]

If so, does anyone have any recommendations on what to get that will still allow the lens cap to be used?

I have no idea what lens you've actually got, as I can't actually remember ever hearing of an 18-35mm zoom lens before.

But assuming you've got the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, I wouldn't bother with a hood - it's so bloody small it's not worth troubling with. Hell, I don 't even think it's specifically designed for the lens in question.

As for the future, the general rule of thumb with Canon lenses is that if you can afford it, go with a genuine Canon lens hood. There's something nice about using the proper tool for the job.

And if you can't afford it, or don't want to spend that much money; go with a Marumi - I'm pretty sure they are the only third-party company licenced by Canon to make lens hoods. Pretty much identical, apart from the nice black felt coating you get on inside of the Canon hoods.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Thanks for your efforts, but although I am a noobie at the whole DSLR thing even I know that the above is not right. Non-Digital polarisers are not exclusively linear polarisers at all.

Circular polarisers exist because linear polarisers mess up Auto Focus systems. CPLs existed long before DSLRs. If one had a 35mm SLR with AF then a CPL would have been an appropriate choice then just as it is now with AF DSLRs.

The question was "standard CPL vs "Digital" CPL..... What's the additional benefit with the so called "Digital" version or is it simply marketing BS."

The digital ones tends to be thinner on the metal ring.

That's about it, it's a marketing exercise really, but there is an argument for less vignette.

I put B&W F-pro on my L glass.

 

[glitch]

Do you have any actually recommendations of hoods you think are good and worth the extra of something basic off the auction site?

Lens hoods will only protect the lens in certain instances when the design of the actual lens facilitates it.

For example, putting a lens hood on something like a 16-35mm f.2.8 L won't really offer much protection in the event of a drop, where as putting one on a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, will.

UV filter - this is the voodoo topic of your OP. People say you don't need it, it reduce quality, why spend £1k lens and put a cheap piece of glass in front of it (my £1k glass has £80 filters in front of it), that it does nothing.

Well, I take my photos outdoors, amongst people so I play on the safe side. I rather break a filter thsn a front element. Some lens requires a front filter to be weather sealed (16-35L), and that I don't notice and image quality reduction with them.

I'd say that it's a completely personal thing and that, like you, people ought to make their choices based on their own personal needs.

I've handled more lenses than I'd care to mention and seen first-hand the amount of abuse that a front element can take and survive without a scratch. And, if anything, it's the larger lenses with front elements that you can't even fit a filter to, let alone buy one for that are in the most danger.

Well, that and the idiots who clean their lenses with dirty cloths/their shirt/etc and scratch the front element with something abrasive caught up in the cloth. But they can be excluded on the basis of sheer bloody stupidity.

But if you worry about your equipment, need your lens to be fully weather-sealed or just around some clumsy people or in unpredictable situations - buy the best filter you can afford and use it.

 

[An Exception]

Just been looking into this issue.
From what I can tell, scratching the front element is rare if handling carefully, especially when using lens hoods.
If the front element does become scratched, it's not normally that big a deal in terms of usability. Apparently flare can become an issue, but there are DIY ways to prevent that.
Lastly, it doesn't seem to be the end of the world if the front element does get scratched, the cost of replacing it doesn't seem to be as expensive as I thought it would be.

Not sure about weather sealing with my lenses though, I had assumed Nikon lenses were weather sealed with or without a filter?

If so, I think I'll just use a hood, save on filters, and use that money to offset against any possible scratch that may or may not ever happen...

 

[glitch]

Not sure about weather sealing with my lenses though, I had assumed Nikon lenses were weather sealed with or without a filter?

Very few lenses are 'weather sealed' without a filter present on the front, but Nikon have the more extensive range when it comes to that little rubber gasket thingy on the lens mount - however, Canon aren't exactly far behind.

And 'weather sealed' is a stupid term at the best of times. Try getting a definition of what it actually means from either Canon or Nikon* and prepare for a headache-inducing back-and-forth conversation and much throwing of hands in the air.

From memory, only the high-end fast telephoto primes and some zooms are properly weather sealed; everything else needs a filter screwed onto the front. Obviously there are notable exceptions there - your 14-24mm being the perfect example.

When it comes to filters, I've done a complete 180º on the issue and now fail to see the point of them unless you're doing something really specific or utterly stupid - front elements are bloody tough to damage.

I've seen probably four or five genuine occasions where a filter has saved the day, but even then you stand a good chance of damaging the front element with pieces of glass from the filter or knackering the filter threads when the frame takes a battering.

That said, I also don't believe they degrade image quality in any meaningful way, as long as you buy sensibly, so the only real downside to using one is purely financial.

*Other lens manufacturers are available.

 

[Amp34]

I assume the OP is saying the 18-55 (non IS) as he has a 400D. In which case forget about the lens hood, it's just a 1cm bit of plastic (I bought one...) and makes little/no difference. I'd also forget about the UV personally, the lens itself can be got for around £50, a decent 58mm UV filter will cost you £30... On the other hand I would only contemplate putting one on a lens I was using in a desert/very wet environment/stones flying around, not every day use (use mine a lot walking/skiing/hiking). If you have a £1k lens then a decent UV filter makes some sense, otherwise it's a waste of money IMO.

For a CPL I'd just get a decent one, I have a cheaper CPL and it does affect the IQ a lot.

 

[a1ex2001]

My two pence.

I've never owned a lens that I've thought worthy of a UV filter for protection but so far my most expensive lens was about £200 I might change my mind when my first L arrives later this week.

Looking at all my lenses and even the 20 year old 70-210mm f4 that I'm about the sixth owner of is free from scratches. My Sigma 17-70mm has been practically glued to the camera since I had it and I've dragged it round the world with me without ever using a filter for protection or even a lens hood most of the time and that too is imaculate, well the glass is!

I couldn't live without a CPL though it is about the only filter effect that is impossible to do in post processing so get a good one and use it when needed.