For film camera users there are two main reasons that you may wish to use a UV or Skylight filter, but for digital camera shooters there’s probably only one.
UV filters block ultra violet light which can be an issue for film users. The filters reduce the blue cast in photos taken in bright sunny conditions. Digital sensors aren’t particularly sensitive to UV so it isn’t an issue for digital camera users - and besides white balance or any colour cast is easy to correct with digital images.
The second reason to use a filter, and the reason I use them on many of my film camera lenses, is to protect the lens front element. It’s better to mark or scratch a cheap filter than a lens. I find them particularly useful for street photography or anytime I’m walking around with a camera. Even though I’ve never damaged a lens or filter, I know that with a filter fitted I won’t scratch the lens if I’m in a crowd or scrambling down a slippery bank to get a shot, and there’s no need to faff around (and drop) a lens cap. The camera is always ready to shoot.
So what’s the difference between a UV and a Skylight filter? They're pretty much the same except UV filters are clear whereas Skylight filters have a faint pinkish tint which some argue is better for portraits or photos taken in the shade (using film). There are also Haze filters which are the same as UV filters.
Is there any difference between an expensive filter and a cheaper alternative? Yes, but unless you have an expensive high-performance lens you probably won’t notice any difference in the glass. The expensive ones will probably have better made retaining rings which will be less prone to denting or cross threading than the cheaper brands though.
I have heaps of these filters for sale, from as little as $3. Frankly it's a small amount to pay to ensure your lens stays clean and scratch free.
Comments