Quote:
Originally Posted by radiantm3
You can look at it from the other side as well. You spend over a grand on quality lenses for better image quality. Why add another layer of glass to possibly negate that? I'm not saying it's true or not, but just something to think about. I don't use uv filters anymore. Just lens hoods if I worry about protection. I only use filters if it's necessary for a particular shot (polarizing, neutral density).
|
Stock lens coatings are not designed for all circumstances. If they came with a UV coating, they'd by useless for UV photography. If they came with a polarizing coating they'd use needed light and not see through some other polarized surfaces.
Having good, high quality filters and using them appropriately maximizes the effectiveness of you images.
If you're going to use a UV filter to protect the lens, then get one that actually works and is as good a quality as your lens. I use Hoya HD because the mounts are thin, the glass is top quality and they actually work. (I've seen test of some of the no-name generics and they were merely glass, with no UV filtering capacity. Member is of photo.net can see for themselves).
I keep my UV filter on my "walk around" 24-105 f4L IS because the lens sees lots and lots of action and the image quality is good, except in certain side light where it'll add to flare, even with the hood on. (I always use the hood). My 400mm f5.6L takes the same filter, but I only use it when the light requires it. The hood sticks out about 3" beyond the glass, giving ample protection. With the tele, the subject is usually pretty close, so haze is not an issue.
Dave