Well once again this little gem has come up, so I thought I would write do a short blog on it.
Should you have a UV(0) filter on your lens?
The two sites are:
- Any extra piece of glass is going to reduce/manipulate/change the quality of the image.
- The protection offers by the filter out ways any image quality images.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
Both statements are true. You just paid $500-$1200 for a nice lens on your SLR to get the absolutely best image you can. Why introduce something that is going to take away from your image quality? But also, you just paid $500-$1200 for a nice lens, do you really want to scratch the front element when a small piece of debris get blown into it? Or while you’re cleaning it, you scratch it?
So what’s the answer? The answer is to use a filter, but use the best filter possible to reduce the amount of disruption to an absolute minimum. Multi-coated filters, good name brand filters are the best option.
I personally use Sunpack filters as they are actually made by the same manufacturers as other “name brand” filters but cost half. When I get a new lens, after testing it and within the first 12 hours I have a sunpack UV(0) filter on there and it doesn’t come off until spring cleaning. I do my very best not to have to remove the filter. I have heard of “What about sunflares?” USE your hood, that’s what it is for. Also, you can use a GND filter on top of the UV filter. Most non-ultra-wide filtes (< 14mm) will not notice the extra lens. You should check this on your lens before trying it though. My Canon EF 24-105mm L f/4 is my main walk around lens and it has had UV(0), and 2 GND (-3 stop) filters on it without it doing any vignetting — so it depends on the lens.
Final word…. I rather break and chuck s $60 filter than have to send in my lens to Canon for a $400 repair anyday of the week.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into Infrared photography and there doesn’t seem to be a single place that contains all of it, so here is what I found:
With DSLRs there are three types of IR Techniques.
- Photoshop
- Converted Bodies
- Filters
Photoshop: Techniques do exist to “imitate” IR photography. This is a trick and cannot reproduce the amazing images that you can get from IR itself.
Converted Bodies: The main reason that IR photography is not readily available to us is that all DSLR cameras have a IR Filter that blocks most of the IR light from the sensor. Method #3 is to physically remove this filter from in front of the sensor. This conversion is destructive, and that body is not longer able to take normal pictures again, it can only take IR images. Yes, this means you have to carry yet another body with you everywhere you go, but this is the best possible image you can get. A typical conversion (there are two or three different kinds) is around $250. The positives are endless, Auto Focus Works, Exposure Controls work (somewhat, you still need to adjust exposure compensation), you can see the image in your Preview Window as it is, you can use it with any lens you like (even fish eye or long zooms that don’t accept filters or use drop ins).
Filters: They are expensive, but can be used and unused as you like. The draw backs to filters are:
- They’re expensive (did I say that already?)
- Hoya R72 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($90 – $210 respectively)
- B+W 093 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($114 – $203 respectively)
- Tiffen 87 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($106 – $153 respectively)
- With Filters, you have to use very long exposures (as most of the light is blocked by the IR filter of the camera.
- Only certain scenes can be captured (because of the duration required)
- AF is disabled (you can’t see anything once you put the filter on) — You have to compose your shot, put on the filter and hope nothing moves, than take the shot.
- Exposure Control is disabled.
- You have to use a tripod – since you get only a small % of the light you need very long exposures (10″-30″, 30″+ second exposure are typical).
In the next few posts, I’ll delve more into each of these items in more detail.