UV

Are uv filters any good underwater? or should i not bother getting it underwater?

No need for one underwater at all. I question the need for one above water as well, I always cringe at the idea of putting a $40 filter on the front of a $800 lens.

Bill

No need for one underwater at all. I question the need for one above water as well, I always cringe at the idea of putting a $40 filter on the front of a $800 lens.

Bill

That's why I use one topside

 

That's why I use one topside

Bill

Luckily that's not my gear, it's a fellow whose blog I follow. I get out hiking a lot shooting nature and wildlife stuff, so sometimes slipping and falling or some other unforeseen event is inevitable. I sacrifice a very small degree of sharpness to the gods of paranoia...

I always cringe at the idea of putting a $40 filter on the front of a $800 lens.

I always cringe at the idea of not putting a $40 filter on the front of a $800 lens (actually an $80 filter and a $1200 dollar lens, but who's counting?).

Underwater, however, it's just not needed as the front element is protected by the port.

Tim

I guess I am in the poor minority here, not having any $1200 lenses and in thinking that filters degrade images. I think this is one of the minor things that people debate all the time but I have seen enough (not underwater) filter flare to think of filters like lenscaps, take them off before you take a picture. By the way, most UV filters don't filter much UV and you current lens will pass only a teeny tiny amount of UV anyway, but as Dr. Tim says, underwater it isn't needed anyway.

Bill

we had a mix up with our lenses and we took a UV filter in the UW housing, but it pushed against the glass of the housing when focusing so it wouldn't allow us to focus on close or far away subjects.. very annoying!

Depends on what specific wavelength of UV ya'll are talking about, but it is readily absorbed by the water.

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~scherer/Blogging/ColourWater/absorption.png