I purchased a new-to-me Tamron 17-35 mm lens (Canon EF mount). It came with a Kenko Pro1D filter (https://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Protector-Digital-Mullti-Coated-Camera-Filters/dp/B000PJ588U)
Is this a desirable thing to keep on the lens ?
- 5Posts
- 5Replies
Read-only discussion
Kenko Pro1D filter. Keep or remove ?
5 posts
-
-
Hey John
I keep a UV-type filter on all my topside lenses all the time - as protection. Assuming your lens is in an underwater housing most of the time, such protection is less necessary but they do no harm.
-
I'm in the opposite camp, I used UV filters many years ago when shooting film, but these days I don't use them. Googling around there's various posts around comparing before and after images and most seem to claim little or no difference with a "good" filter. I have personally seen people post on forums with obvious effects coming from cheap UV filters that were solved by removing them - the one I recall was like an interference pattern. I don't feel the need to have protection on my lenses so I regard them as unnecessary and potentially image degrading. The one time I might consider one would be shooting in salt spray by the ocean or very dusty areas. They also are more susceptible to flare being placed right at the front of the lens - even if they have decent coatings.
UV filters were certainly a thing to use on film, the UV light wasn't focused correctly by the lens due to the different wavelength and in bright light caused haze on the image. Digital sensors however have a protective cover with infrared and UV cut filters built in as part of the design so the UV part of the equation is strictly not needed with digital cameras.
-
Thanks. The lens is dedicated to UW use, so I'll remove the filter.
-
By the way, over at Lensrentals.com, there is are a number of blog posts on filters where they do various tests.
Here is one such
Not sure if it was this test or another one, but I was pleased to see that the Nikon filter was near the top of the list.
