Recommended UV lens cover for lens protection.....

[Lonnie1212]

Hi Folks,

Over the past couple of years I have been buying cheap screw on lens filters for lens protection. Normally I'll find one for $5.00 to $7.00. I don't really care about the brand. If the glass looks clear I will buy it. Haven't had any problems----yet.

A few days ago I bought an old 300 mm prime lens. I took a few pictures with it and they were poor pics and I was upset about it. Then I noticed that it had a protective UV screw on lens. I unscrewed the filter and it looked like it had nicotine stains on it. I don't think it's a diffuser lens filter, because it's not dark enough. I just looks like glass that has stained over the years. Does cheap no name glass change color or stain over the years?

Thank you,

Lonnie

 

[DarkShadow]

it sounds like a warming filter, are you sure it's a UV. I have no idea if a clear UV can discolor i never use one,i use a lens hood.

 

[480sparky]

Any markings on the ring?

 

[Lonnie1212]

it sounds like a warming filter, are you sure it's a UV. I have no idea if a clear UV can discolor i never use one,i use a lens hood.

Maybe it is a warming filter. I have never used a warming filter. I put it in the kitchen sink and scrubbed it with soap and water. It is still a very mild brown tint in color. The lens brand is 'Popular' it lens UV on it. That is all the information that I have. If anyone wants it they can have it. lol.

 

[Lonnie1212]

Any markings on the ring?

It has 'Popular' 72 mm Japan UV, that is all in the way of markings.

 

[DarkShadow]

Use it for a coaster.LOL

 

[Derrel]

Lesson just waiting to be learned here. I used to use UV protective filters the Nikon l37c for about 20 years and then I switched to b + w which were quite expensive, and then one day I thought the heck with it I will just dispense with any filter that was about 20 years ago dude for the past 20 years I have not used any protective filters.

 

[Timppa]

I stopped using uv filter for the last 3 years already.
I feel they are like a scam for salesmen to get some extra money. Just like they always try to sell shoe deodorant/polish when you buy a new pair of shoes.
The front glass element is really well protected.

 

[Space Face]

I never use them, even the best will give some loss of IQ. In nearly 40 years of photography, film and digital, I've never dropped a lens on it's front element or done anything else to damage one. Waste of time and money imo.

 

[cgw]

Then there's this:

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

Don't consider myself a chump, at least when it comes to UV filters, but they have saved several lenses from serious damage-the busted filter being a stand-in for the front element. Then there are those "cleaning marks" left by OCD scrubbers who'd rather scour the lens than a filter--removable too last time I checked. YMMV, as always.

 

[petrochemist]

UV filters made a very significant difference with some films, and camera salesmen have been pushing them ever since for the supposed 'protection' they offer. (There's much more profit in selling filters than lenses).
There are some occasions where they do offer a degree of protection (sea spray, dust storms, toddlers with sticky fingers...) but with the exception of those rather predictable situations their protection is highly debatable. On line tests suggest impact damage that destroys filters often won't do anything to a unprotected lens & the shards from a smashed filter can damage a lens.
For moderate focal lengths the UV filter probably won't cause any noticeable drop in image quality, with extreme telephoto lenses the effect of the filter can be quite marked, every minor imperfection being magnified by the lens. I'd expect a 300mm lens to be getting into the region where filter quality will be noticeable.

I use filters when they make a difference (shooting lots of IR with full spectrum cameras, makes this much more common than for many photographers), but rarely use UV/skylight filters. I have found the metal frames from these filters can be useful for mounting projector lenses, but most of the time they're about as much use as a sun bed in the Sahara.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Living at altitude I find a definite improvement in IQ on hazy days. There have been quite a few of those this year too.

 

[480sparky]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

 

[mjcmt]

I use basic B+W 010 UV or Hoya UV haze filters w/ hoods and don't use a lens caps. It protects the front element and camera is ready to shoot.

 

[Soocom1]

Lots of people make claims that a filter saved their lens. But no one has ever produced any empirical evidence. It's just a hunch... a feeling... a wish. They point to the busted or bent filter and proclaim, "See, that would be my lens if I didn't have that filter on it!".

But lenses and filters are completely different construction. Lenses are robust and thick. Filters are thin and flimsy.

The only way to prove your lens was 'saved' would be to subject it to the exact same event without the filter. So far, no one seems capable of doing that as the event that damage the filter was unplanned. This is the closest I've ever seen done:

Had I not thrown it out I would show proof of a shattered filter with one of my Med. Format lenses I have that had a UV filter on it.

As for thier use, UV filters above 4k feet actually are quite useful. In NM the UV index here is measured in millirads!