UV Filter replacement

rukva

Hi all,

I just bought a new lense the same diameter as the old one, I was going to use the UV filter I had on the old one ( about 10 years old ) on the new lense, the guy in the shop said that UV filters should be replaced every year.

Does that sound right to you?

Brendan

rukva wrote:

Hi all,

I just bought a new lense the same diameter as the old one, I was going to use the UV filter I had on the old one ( about 10 years old ) on the new lense, the guy in the shop said that UV filters should be replaced every year.

Does that sound right to you?

If you want to use UV filters for protection, they should be replaced when needed -- i.e., when they are dirty and won't come clean, or chipped, etc.

Something to be aware of is that bad camera stores will try to sell you add-ons where their profits are highest. No-name UV filters are one example. I would personally take my business elsewhere if the salesman tried to pitch me such a silly line (or at least let the management know I don't appreciate being treated in that way).

—Brendan

Miguel Delinquento

If it is clean and there are no signs of coatings breaking down, then it is probably OK to use it. What brand of filter is it anyway?
There is a lot of controversy about even using a UV on a lens attached to a digital camera. I use a clear UV filter as protection for my pricey lenses.
I have become friends with someone who runs a highly regarded camera/optical repair shop. He showed me the week's work orders for lens front elements that were damaged and did not have a filter attached. That was convincing enough.
He did explain that the primary difference between good filter brands (such as Hoya and B&W) is how long their coatings lasted. Tiffen is not coated and should be avoided. I usually purchase Hoya Pro1 as I like their thinness.

M

rukva

It's a Tamron 72mm 1A UV filter on a Tamron 18-270mm lense on a Canon 400d. No scratches or dust on the filter.

I was kinda surprised myself because I have bought lots of stuff from this shop and I use it for my printing as well. Maybe it was the sales guy trying to make a few extra bucks as I bargained the lense down lower the I could buy it on e-bay.

ziggy53

Your best test for any filter on any lens is to do actual tests with the filter attached and then with it off the lens. Look for a decrease in either sharpness and/or contrast.

Ideally, if you shoot using a tripod, you may even use JPG file sizes to judge relative sharpness differences because any drop in sharpness will generally result in a drop in file size as well due to higher compression.

Don't use single images but rather a series of images as individual images may vary slightly due to focus issues etc.

rukva

Yep, Did a bunch of shots with/without filter and I could not find any noticible difference.....

Thanks all.......

Photoskipper

I used my first UV filter bought in early 80's and still ok. No damage of coating or other defect. It is not expensive to replace it anytime but just found it easier to pick up from the drybox.

I think the UV filter is the last piece of photo accessory to worry.

Tee Why

rukva wrote:

Hi all,

I just bought a new lense the same diameter as the old one, I was going to use the UV filter I had on the old one ( about 10 years old ) on the new lense, the guy in the shop said that UV filters should be replaced every year.

Does that sound right to you?

Yes, if they are interested in increasing their profits. For you? I'd seriously doubt it.

NikonsandVstroms

ziggy53 wrote:

Your best test for any filter on any lens is to do actual tests with the filter attached and then with it off the lens. Look for a decrease in either sharpness and/or contrast.

Ideally, if you shoot using a tripod, you may even use JPG file sizes to judge relative sharpness differences because any drop in sharpness will generally result in a drop in file size as well due to higher compression.

Don't use single images but rather a series of images as individual images may vary slightly due to focus issues etc.

Nice jpeg trick!