DSLRUsers.com

I always have a standard 1 uv filter on my lenses to avoid uv glare & also scratching a 30$ piece of glass is a lot better than a 300$ lense.

My question is however, I like night shots and I don't bother taking off the UV filters. Do you think this affects the overall brightness?? I would experiment this, however won't get time this week so I've resorted here

UV have a light compensation of zero so I'm assuming that it won't affect night shots.

Below 0, I am with Dooda, if they did effect anything with light transmission it would just be shutter speed would be a touch longer.

If you look at the night shots I posted last night, the 12-24 cant take a filter and the 70-200 had a UV on. Doesn't seem much difference.

Glen wrote:Below 0, I am with Dooda, if they did effect anything with light transmission it would just be shutter speed would be a touch longer.

If you look at the night shots I posted last night, the 12-24 cant take a filter and the 70-200 had a UV on. Doesn't seem much difference.

The 12-24 can't take filter? I have one on mine Glen

Do you have the Sigma or the Nikkor. I think the Sigma takes it and the Nikkor no, or the other way around.

dooda wrote:Do you have the Sigma or the Nikkor. I think the Sigma takes it and the Nikkor no, or the other way around.

Dave

Glen has the Sigma. I have the Nikon. The Sigma doesn't take filters, the Nikon does. I was just ribbing him

Stubbsy, filters are for guys who cant work out exposure

Glen wrote:Stubbsy, filters are for guys who cant work out exposure

What's exposure? I thought you only needed to expose negatives and digital replaced that

A UV filter on the lens at night when taking long exposures you may get some noticable flaring around bright lights. Sometimes this can be appealing and enhance the shot, othertimes it will just be annoying. Fortuantely you have a D70 and can tell right away if it's good or bad.

stubbsy wrote:

dooda wrote:Do you have the Sigma or the Nikkor. I think the Sigma takes it and the Nikkor no, or the other way around.

Dave

Glen has the Sigma. I have the Nikon. The Sigma doesn't take filters, the Nikon does. I was just ribbing him

I wish I had a 12-24. Great wide angles and I wouldn't feel like such a knucklehead in the middle of someone else's joke.

Dave, no one is a knucklehead here. Just get a 12-24, either one, both good and really gives you opportunities


Good point Steve, didn't think of that

I normally leave a filters on all the time but i have learnt that lesson of some nite shots i did in Adelaide when iwas up there with my Fuji and got a lot of flare from the lights in my pics so i take them off when doing nite shots, just incase.
Cheers

If your filterless lens somehow manage to get a scratch on the front of it, you'll notice extremely negligible loss of image quality. By sticking on a UV filter for "protective" purposes you've just permanently degraded your images just as though you had a scratch on the front of your lens.... but at least it'll protect the front of your lens from scratches and further degrading image quality.

Like Onyx, I'm from the no filter school. Anything that comes between you and the subject must degrade the image.

Of course, if I stump up $2K+ for a 70-200 VR, I may change my opinion

dooda wrote:

stubbsy wrote:

dooda wrote:Do you have the Sigma or the Nikkor. I think the Sigma takes it and the Nikkor no, or the other way around.

Dave

Glen has the Sigma. I have the Nikon. The Sigma doesn't take filters, the Nikon does. I was just ribbing him

I wish I had a 12-24. Great wide angles and I wouldn't feel like such a knucklehead in the middle of someone else's joke.

Steve

What Glen said. my Sony - not yours and yes the 12-24 (either of them) is a very nice lens to have in your kit. Would make for some nice snow shots!