I've always thought of the UV Haze filter as nothing more than a lens protector and do not own one. Somewhere back in the day I was asked, "Why put a piece of cheap glass in front of your expensive glass?"
So now I'm trying to get over that early advice as regards my 300mm f/4 and 1.7X combo. I'm pretty comfortable with the value of a polarizer, but I'm concerned about losing 1.5 stops of light for wildlife work. I'm also wondering if using a fill flash with a polarizer or UV filter makes any sense, and I'm wondering if UV filters have any place in wildlife work anyway?
The 77mm filters aren't exactly expensive, but they aren't exactly cheap either, so your thoughts are appreciated.
The haze filters cut out a very small portion of the blue spectrum which is often associated with haze. I have rarely seen it make an appreciable difference in the appearance of an image. Polarizers can have a much more dramatic effect but their effectiveness depends on the direction of the light. If it is such that the dust particles reflect light directly into the camera, a polarizer will be able to eliminate haze, otherwise it will just act as a neutral density filter.
i put on a UV filter if I'm not using a polarizer because I don't want to damage the glass on the lens. I shoot a lot of coastal stuff so it wouldn't be smart to not use anything.
For about half of the year, we use an 81A warming filter on our 300mm f/4 instead of a UV filter. For the other half, we use a "Moose" file which is a combination of an 81A with a circular polarizer.
We have found that starting in the spring, we need a circular polarizer due to reflections from vegetation. Otherwise, leaves in sunlight look almost white. Of course, the use of the CP also depends on whether we have direct sunlight. In shade or on a cloudy day, we switch back to the 81A. During the late fall and winter, we do not have the reflection problem.
One thing I learned long ago is that polarizers do not necessarily improve on image aesthetics. Such depends on the subject and light. For instance try getting a good lake reflection haha. Polarizers certainly have functional uses though that ought not be applied universely.
Unlike a lot of photographers I've seen work that seem oblivious to all the dust that quickly takes up residence on anything outdoors, I am tedious to a fault about keeping my lenses clean and dust free. So am in the habit of dusting off a lens before I expose any sheet film. As such dusting off the surface of a piece of cheap replaceable $20 glass can be done with much less worry than the surface of a $1000 lens. ...David
I have a multicoated UV filter I sometimes use in "dangerous" conditions, such as taking photos of waterfalls (the spray from them contains fine grit) or when I am photo'ing inside grain elevators. I just can't see any difference in the photos with or without. I often use a polarizer because I love the saturated colors. I generally need 1/500 second to get the moving railroad trains I like to photo as sharp, and the polarizer eats up 1-2 stops. I cope by increasing ISO to 400 and have no problems. I agree that there are times a polarizer doesn't help a scene, but mostly I do use one outdoors. I find them useful when using fill flash since they do still affect the sky and things in the distance. I would not use one for macro with flash.
Many expensive lenses have a relatively cheap front element that's easy to replace. How did I find that out? Last fall I had a $120 B+W MRC polarizer on my Nikon 80-400mm VR when it fell "face first" into a hillside. The lens broke free of the camera mount, which remained locked into my camera. The filter shattered, and pieces of it boogered up my lens. It turns out the front element on the lens cost $80 to replace, but the filter was $120! The filter was more expensive than the glass it was protecting. Ironic, no? Anyway, to protect my lenses when I'm not actively taking a photo I use the best protection there is--a lens cap.
I only put a filter on the front of my lenses when I need the filter effect. I do not go out of my way to try to protect the lens unless there special circumstances. One circumstance is photographing geysers in Yellowstone. The spray has a lot of grit and is chemically caustic to the lenses.
Re the benefits on the image, I have not found any image benefits to a UV filter. I do use CP filters in the right light.
The filtration I use most often is the 81-a and b, since I do most of my work at higher altitudes where excessive blue is a concern. I use a polarizer infrequently and other filtration only when needed.
I do suggest that you purchase the highest quality multi-coated filter(s) you can afford. The glass is typically of higher quality, optically flat, and the multi-coating helps prevent flare and ghosting. In my experience, flare and ghosting is the biggest bugaboo of filter use.
I bought some inexpensive UV filters for all my lenses. What did I get? Disappointing Flare!
I might use them in Yellowstone around the geysers to protect the real glass. I use no filters now except a Hoya Pro One DMC Circ pola and some ND grads when needed. If you are going to use UV filters check the reviews and spend the money for B&W or Hoya Pro series.
John
I use polarizers & UV filters a lot less often than I use to. I haven't found UVs to have any benefit to the quality of my shots. I will often put one on if I am composing a scene where water spray from the sea or a waterfall may get onto the lens, then take it off for the shot itself. I am wary of polarizers causing uneven blue skies on a wide-angle. I prefer use a 1 stop NG grad instead of a polarizer to darken the sky.
My experience has been that front elements are pretty darn tough, therefore I choose to leave them bare unless I need a specific filter for a reason. Even here on the coast with the sand and salt spray I've never had a damaged front element. My thoughts are if it needed additional protection, Nikon would have put another piece of glass on at the factory.
There are a lot of other reasons to use a polarizer than just to darken skies or increase saturation of foliage. Did you know that you can enhance (and extinguish) rainbows with a polarizer? The polarizer can also bring out detail in snow and sand, depending on the lighting. The colors in some insect wings are polarized. So are oil slicks. It just takes some experimenting.
Note: you will sometimes hear that using a polarizer on metallic surfaces doesn't work. That's only partially true. If the light falling on the surface is polarized, the metal will not depolarize it and the filter can have some effect.
I have high quality UV filters for all my lenses, even the 500mm lens. I do not use these for protection but I do use them at altitudes over 7,000'. I can see a difference in the color of my images made with and without UV filters at high altitudes. I own polarizers for all of my lenses, except the 500mm lens. I hardly ever use polarizing filters. Most of the time I use them to reduce reflections in a foreground of a scene but not for the sky. I prefer to "underexpose" the sky and do layer blends or HDR.
Discussion
12 repliesSo now I'm trying to get over that early advice as regards my 300mm f/4 and 1.7X combo. I'm pretty comfortable with the value of a polarizer, but I'm concerned about losing 1.5 stops of light for wildlife work. I'm also wondering if using a fill flash with a polarizer or UV filter makes any sense, and I'm wondering if UV filters have any place in wildlife work anyway?
The 77mm filters aren't exactly expensive, but they aren't exactly cheap either, so your thoughts are appreciated.
Guy
For about half of the year, we use an 81A warming filter on our 300mm f/4 instead of a UV filter. For the other half, we use a "Moose" file which is a combination of an 81A with a circular polarizer.
We have found that starting in the spring, we need a circular polarizer due to reflections from vegetation. Otherwise, leaves in sunlight look almost white. Of course, the use of the CP also depends on whether we have direct sunlight. In shade or on a cloudy day, we switch back to the 81A. During the late fall and winter, we do not have the reflection problem.
Unlike a lot of photographers I've seen work that seem oblivious to all the dust that quickly takes up residence on anything outdoors, I am tedious to a fault about keeping my lenses clean and dust free. So am in the habit of dusting off a lens before I expose any sheet film. As such dusting off the surface of a piece of cheap replaceable $20 glass can be done with much less worry than the surface of a $1000 lens. ...David
Many expensive lenses have a relatively cheap front element that's easy to replace. How did I find that out? Last fall I had a $120 B+W MRC polarizer on my Nikon 80-400mm VR when it fell "face first" into a hillside. The lens broke free of the camera mount, which remained locked into my camera. The filter shattered, and pieces of it boogered up my lens. It turns out the front element on the lens cost $80 to replace, but the filter was $120! The filter was more expensive than the glass it was protecting. Ironic, no? Anyway, to protect my lenses when I'm not actively taking a photo I use the best protection there is--a lens cap.
Kent in SD
Re the benefits on the image, I have not found any image benefits to a UV filter. I do use CP filters in the right light.
I do suggest that you purchase the highest quality multi-coated filter(s) you can afford. The glass is typically of higher quality, optically flat, and the multi-coating helps prevent flare and ghosting. In my experience, flare and ghosting is the biggest bugaboo of filter use.
-PB
I might use them in Yellowstone around the geysers to protect the real glass. I use no filters now except a Hoya Pro One DMC Circ pola and some ND grads when needed. If you are going to use UV filters check the reviews and spend the money for B&W or Hoya Pro series.
John
Note: you will sometimes hear that using a polarizer on metallic surfaces doesn't work. That's only partially true. If the light falling on the surface is polarized, the metal will not depolarize it and the filter can have some effect.