Should i use a Skylight-Filter ?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

My smc-a 70-210 came with a vivitar skylight(1A) filter.

I am now asking myself if i should use it as a protection for the lens or not.

According to some google research the filter will not alter the exposure but may interfer with the cameras whitebalance (adding a warming effect).

I also read that the coating on most modern lenses is good enough so that you don't need a UV-Filter. (I think this applies to pentax smc)

Will the filter affect the overall imagequality aside from adding a warming effect? Should i use it only when shooting outside with a lot of sunshine ?

I have never used filters before, do you use Skylight/UV filters for your lenses ? If yes, do you use them for only protecting or to improve the image ?

Thanks in advance

All an unnecessary (from an image perspective) filter does is add yet another couple of air/glass interfaces whihc are the root of all evil when it comes to flare. What does flare do to you? Reduces overall contrast, puts a "haze" over the entire image, etc.

Protection is why you have lens caps - keep the cap over thelens when not shooting. If you're afraid of losing the cap, buy a tether for it.

The Skylight 1A IS useful if you are trying to reduce the haze that results from a heavy dose of UV light in the atmosphere. Otherwise, it gets in the way, and introduces the probability of flare - even from sources you may not be considering or seeing.

I don't use filters for "protection" - even when I am shooting with my Hassy, Leica or 4x5 cameras. Expensive? Yup. Am I careful? Yup. Is there risk? Yup. Such is life.

Opinions differ on the desirability of using a "protective" UV filter on your lenses. I choose to do it, as I've dropped lenses before and have seen how a filter can save the front filter threads for a nasty dent. I've also seen shattered filters on the front of lenses which were not damaged. On the other hand, it is true that using a filter adds two more air-glass interfaces and thus increases the chances of reduced contrast, flare, and unwanted reflections.

My approach is to buy and use only top-quality multicoated filters. Sometimes the filter costs as much as the older used lens I put it on! However, I don't use a filter on my macro lenses as the front lens elements are deeply recessed in the barrel, so little or no added protection would be gained.

YMMV
--
Colormonger.
* * * * *
Belief without doubt is just opinion.

• unknown

i use skylight all the time for all my lenses when doing photojournalism stuff. I've banged the lens, splattered mud, water, and heavy dust (rodeos). At least I didn't feel bad using my shirt to wipe the gunk off the glass and scratching it.

Every now and then the skylight does introduce flares. But I'm more concerned about getting the shot.

For posed artwork, or if I have time to control the environment (studio) I take the skylight off. I don't use skylight for my medium and large-format cameras.

agxo3wrote:

...The Skylight 1A IS useful if you are trying to reduce the haze that
results from a heavy dose of UV light in the atmosphere. Otherwise,
it gets in the way, and introduces the probability of flare - even
from sources you may not be considering or seeing. ...

Actually, a Skylight 1A is designed as a warming filter to counter the blue tinge afforded by open clear blue sky in color film photography; the Skylight 1B is a more severe version, kinda pinkish in color. It is not designed to do anything about UV light, although it does reduce it to some degree. A UV filter is designed to absorb UV light, which was relevant to reduce UV scatter (so-called "Fog" or "Haze") for older B&W film emulsions that were overly sensitive at the blue end of the spectrum.

Both filter effects are totally unnecessary with a digital camera. Digital sensors are not very sensitive to UV light at all, and the blue tinge is better adjusted by manipulating white balance.

The only reason to use a UV or Skylight filter on a lens with a digital camera is to feel secure that you are offering some protection to the front element of the lens. Any protection they might offer comes with some reduction of resolution, and with flare. A better solution to protect your lens is a screw-in lens hood when shooting and a lens cap when the camera is not in use. The only time the trade off for protection vs image quality is worth it is when you're in situations where water, mud, dirt and other flying debris might spatter the front element of the lens ... You're not going to get peak quality in those situations anyway, might as well protect the lens.

Godfrey

thanks for all your answers. This forum is really helpful.

I guess i will use the filter only when the shooting-conditions demand protection for the lens (mud, dirt, water etc.).

I am always careful with my lenses and i do not own a really expensive lense yet.

Filters do introduce some optical degradation but I have found it, in most cases, to be so slight that I could live with it. And where it matters I quickly take it off.

But I have seen that lenses are more lilkely to be damaged by repeated cleaning attempts. I would rather clean (and damage) my filter.

I use them, most of the tiome when I go out shooting I want the camera to be ready as it is, meaning, beside me in the car or whatever. Don't want to bother about picking it out of the bag. Usually i have ofcourse lens cover, but i frequently manage to loose that. Soooo. Any protection is welcome.

And you will loose some quality but tehn again i will be able to get something i wouldn't get any other way.

psmithwrote:

... But I have seen that lenses are more lilkely to be damaged by
repeated cleaning attempts. I would rather clean (and damage) my
filter.

It's been my experience that lenses with a filter on them require cleaning more frequently than lenses without a filter. With a filter, a thin film seems to form on the inside of the filter and on the front surface of the lens, without it I usually just see some dust collect on the filter.

I normally only blow the dust off my lenses with a hand blower bulb, they rarely need any kind of wiping.

Godfrey

I have never damaged a lens while cleaning. I use my breath and a soft cotton cloth. Ocassionally I use pure methanol. I think people worry way to much about damaging their lenses with cleaning.

psmithwrote:

Filters do introduce some optical degradation but I have found it,
in most cases, to be so slight that I could live with it. And where
it matters I quickly take it off.
But I have seen that lenses are more lilkely to be damaged by
repeated cleaning attempts. I would rather clean (and damage) my
filter.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone.

Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.