What's new

Humid Environment - UV Filter?

And what is the dew point? It doesn't matter. Just warm it up if there is risk of condensation.
 
Would a UV filter (or any filter) protect the surface of my lens from condensation? I would think it would reduce the shock when going outdoors and allow time for the lens surface to become acclimated to the humid weather so it doesn't steam up.

Other than slowly acclimating the camera to the out door environment, any other tips for going from an Air Conditioned hotel room out into the humid air?

For Example:

1. As we approach our destination in our car, slowly turn the AC off and then open the window to the car, but leave the camera in the case.
2. After we get to our destination, leave the camera in the case for 10-15 mins before taking it out of the bag
3. Wait a 5-10 more minutes to take the lens cap off.

I plan to not carry the case with me while we hike, but just carry the camera around my neck, so silica gel packets won't be necessary.

: The air out there is a salty moist. In fact, it’s so salty that the planes that fly that route have to be swapped for other planes every 5 years to prevent

Today's cameras/lenses offer varying degrees, of WR , some better, some worse. The key is to remember the "WR" rating means Weather Resistant, not Waterproof. As the lens barrel moves in and out, there will always be an exchange of air/potential contaminate's, between the outside and internals. A day's worth of shooting on the beach (depending on conditions) could be enough to really muck things up internally. Using a UV filter might keep salt deposits off the face of the lens, but wouldn't help much with other issues.

All that said it doesn't keep me from shooting in nasty environments, just use some common sense. Let your gear accliment slowly inside your bag when going from cool to warm you don't want salt filled condensation forming deposits. Depending on the day, rain covers are relatively inexpensive, in a pinch I've cobbled together covers from zip lock bags and tape, even saran wrap. Depending the weather you should keep lenses changing to a minimum when outside. At the end of the day, it's a good idea to wipe down the exterior surfaces, remove the lens and clean the glass. While the lens is off, it's a good time to hit the internals with a rocket blower.
 
They are not very good at protecting from impacts.

Funny how they taken punches and saved some very expensive glass from serious damage.

Yes, they can for sure save a lens. Every so often we have a customer that damaged the filter and the lens was fine. They can be a PITA to take off though.
I use metal lens hoods instead as I use filters only when necessary.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cgw
I used to shoot Astro Photography, and Dew and condensation was massive issue, so we use heaters on the lens elements, if your on a shoot and your bag is warm and you draw a lens that hits the cold ( or Visa Versa ) just give yourself time for the lens to become familiar with the conditions, There is a big issue with do you put the cheaper glass on the front of your expensive glass, if your dragging the lens across a sandy beach then yep protect all the elements you can, and I DO have cheaper screw on protection to all my Canon L Lenses, and know they are there, and sort in post, as I do when I stick an ND grad in front of the glass for effect.. There is no Right or Wrong, as long as you know what the Filter / Lens cover gives you
 
Perfect. Thanks all for the help. I appreciate it.
 
Yes, they can for sure save a lens. Every so often we have a customer that damaged the filter and the lens was fine. They can be a PITA to take off though.
I use metal lens hoods instead as I use filters only when necessary.
Been there. Usually requires battlefield surgical techniques and inappropriate tools. Have a small wardrobe of old Nikon hoods.
 
Damage the front element of that pricey lens and you might change your tune. Think of it
as a clear lens cap.
Well as with any impact it depends. I have seen (not experienced myself) how a filter impact damaged threads on the lens and the broken glass chiped the lens glass. As for me as soon as the lens cap comes off. The lens hood is on. In an impact the lens hood is plastic and will not damage threads, it is flexible and can absorb internal lens impact damage by reducing impact instead of transferring impact and it protects objects from touching the front element. Lens hood is a better friend in my opinion and improves IQ instead of degrading it.
 
Well as with any impact it depends. I have seen (not experienced myself) how a filter impact damaged threads on the lens and the broken glass chiped the lens glass. As for me as soon as the lens cap comes off. The lens hood is on. In an impact the lens hood is plastic and will not damage threads, it is flexible and can absorb internal lens impact damage by reducing impact instead of transferring impact and it protects objects from touching the front element. Lens hood is a better friend in my opinion and improves IQ instead of degrading it.
Did you actually read this sentence? Hilarious...
 
I can never understand why would some one put a £30 piece of glass in front of a £1000 lens ..??
Doesnt matter at all whether you understand it.
 
Doesnt matter at all whether you understand it.
Miscommunication. Jeff15 is saying that it doesn't make sense.

Whether it is wise to use a clear filter or not depends on the case. If you let your lens rattle around in a bag along with other gear, then a filter will help protect the front element from scratches and dust. If you always use a lens hood, then a filter offers little advantage and some disadvantage.

It is always wise to get facts and base buying decisions based on them - as opposed to relying on beliefs or giving in to a salesman's suggestion to protect a precious new lens with an expensive little addon.

Why are clear filters so expensive? Compare these simple flat pieces of glass with the precision-made lens elements in lenses. Filters cost $50-100 or more. The Canon nifty fifty with 6 elements is $125. Does that make sense? Filter costs seem out of proportion to me.
 
Damage the front element of that pricey lens and you might change your tune. Think of it
as a clear lens cap.
canon-300mm-lens-design.jpg

In a rugged environment, being able to wipe off the front of the lens, with something simple, and not risking ruining the front element, would be a good reason for the filter protection.

uv-filter.jpg


another-lens-saved-cracked-filter.jpg

Unexpected 90MPH freight train, blew over the tripod.

Never Say Never, for those who never dropped a lens or had an accident.

Protection and sealing, I'd agree with Canon. :encouragement: But I also admit, I'm an old timer with about 65 years of photography, so I get stuck in my ways.

ps Filters have no effect on AWB, you could be putting an 85A on the front, and see no change. UV, Skylight or clear, take your pick. No effect.
 
Correct, Canon used to provide a protective clear element on some of their big tele lenses. But they don't do that any more.

Up to the user to decide.
 
Correct, Canon used to provide a protective clear element on some of their big tele lenses. But they don't do that any more.

Up to the user to decide.
Yes, it is. I just get tired of the harsh critics, who can't let others decide? :encouragement:

Interesting, thanks for pointing out the design changes. I have the old, not that it's a big deal, but the new is rated as one of the sharpest Canon lenses ever made. Funny how when I started, I thought... the FL lenses were because they were Fluorite, not just a name for the mounting system. And the FD was... heck if I know. "All the FL lenses are single coated, while most of the FD lenses are multicoated. "

R.344895510830e95c6f2330cbcf281a47


Here's the f/1.8 200mm
R.8d27787e3d40ee0e13dac36f00f4b85b

Maybe the non-filter people might consider popping that front clear glass off and making it even better?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom