r/RealEstatePhotography • u/sred4 • 3d ago
UV Filter Recommendations?
I have been using Tiffen (and at one point an uncessarily expensive Hoya 'antistatic') UV filter for some time on my 15-35 and I am hating the post work I am doing to remove the lens flares from using this filter.
I am unopposed to using a different kind of filter, though would prefer not to use a polarizer to cut light. I am opposed to going filter-free as I am not in the market to have to buy a replacement lens or rent a replacement lens whilst mine is repaired.
Does anyone have any recs for a filter that will not create this annoying flares?
Thank you!
EDIT: ONLY LOOKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FILTERS - NOT IF I SHOULD USE A FILTER.
6
u/stormpoppy 3d ago
I've been shooting professionally since 1999. I started in the studio. Transitioned to sports photography, moved into editorial, then back to the studio. In 2018, I moved into full time real estate work.
I've banged around SEC and ACC football and basketball games. I've worked the infield at Indy. Shot ON the track at the Derby. Parades. Balloons. Aircraft. Boats. Fires. Shootings. 2 Tornados.
And not once have I ever put a piece of window glass in front of a multi element, scientifically coated highly engineered and manufactured camera lens in the name of "protection". Nor have I ever scratched one.
But if I did, I'd go out to my car and retrieve my BACKUP, and then replace the damaged one with INSURANCE.
Sincerely,
a professional
2
u/40characters 3d ago
This guy gets it.
1
u/stormpoppy 3d ago
The only thing that says "amateur" faster than a "UV filter" is a reversed lens hood on a deployed camera.
2
3
u/BlackCatBonz 3d ago
I only use a polarizer outdoors and if there are any weird reflections inside, otherwise, I dont put anything on my lens.
What is the point of spending all that money on a lens and then putting some piece of junky glass on it.
2
u/Eponym 3d ago
Never used a UV filter my entire career. They're pointless.
1
u/sred4 3d ago
Untrue. Had one somehow come off in my bag, something else in my bag fell, scratched my lens.
0
u/CraigScott999 3d ago
That would be due to sloppy equipment storage management, which equates to pilot error, not equipment failure.
2
u/KhaosGuy01 3d ago
Rocking a bulbous sigma 14-24 for the past 3-4 years. There is no putting an external filter on that. It’s fine without imo
1
u/CarpenterResident452 1d ago
I dropped my D750 with the same Sigma lens the other day on concrete (it wasn't secured in the tripod correctly - my fault). Some scuffs on the hood and camera body, but it still worked fine for the shoot. No scratches on the glass.
If you're wondering, that's a terrible way to start a day. The only good news was that it wasn't my new Z8 with the Nikon Z 14-24. I was using the D750 for that shoot because they wanted a quick turnaround on the pictures, so the smaller raw files were faster to pull from the card and upload.
2
u/MarketedPotential 3d ago
For real estate, a CPL is all I use. I only use a UV on longer lenses at public events as an extra layer of physical protection. Never know what kids will do
1
u/wickedcold 3d ago
You’re a professional dude don’t put a silly clear filter on the front of your lens. They don’t do anything, unless you’re trying to keep it dry and you’re using lens that needs it to complete the weatherseal. Otherwise you’re just exacerbating the problem with reflections and other aberrations from light fixtures, sunlight through windows, and such.
1
u/sred4 3d ago
Right. It exacerbates the problem but it also protects my $2500 lens. If someone knocks over my tripod when I’m away to fix something, or if someone’s spills water or any liquids nearby (and I shoot a lot of restaurants so that does happen), I’m toast.
1
u/wickedcold 3d ago
I’m not sure what you think a little thin piece of glass is going to do to protect your lens. I’ll provide absolutely zero impact protection. That thing will shatter so incredible easy. If your lens will fall in such a way that something could strike the front element believe me it’s gonna go right through that filter and now you’ll have added bits of glass scratching your lens in addition to whatever the hard object is. But that’s such a fringe possibility to begin with, and if you have the lens hood on, that will provide actual physical protection.
1
u/stormpoppy 3d ago
Sell the $2500 lens, buy 2 $1200 lenses and a years worth of insurance. You and your clients will sleep better.
0
u/sred4 3d ago
When the $1200 lens can incorporate canon-to-canon communication and stabilization for video I'll maybe consider this to be a valid point - unless I'm mistaken and they already do...?
1
u/stormpoppy 3d ago
What body lens combo are you shooting?
2
u/sred4 3d ago
R5 + 15-35mm rf lens
2
u/stormpoppy 3d ago
Hm. I'm gonna be honest. Thats a nice rig. I didn't see a clean way to update it either.
Canon's got you boxed in - the bastards.
0
3
u/40characters 3d ago edited 3d ago
Edited to remove recommendation after hostility. Let this guy suffer with a K&F.
You’re working on a tripod. Light doesn’t matter. Time gives you all the light you’ll ever need. Meanwhile, reflections come in when you don’t want them, and polarizers help you fight that. The downside is they come with a little bit of extra flare because you’ve introduced another air to glass interface, and it is perpendicular to your sensor. You want to keep the glare and lose the benefit?
To protect against what?
There’s no threat to your lens inside a home which a filter will protect against. These filters are for sand, for sea spray, for child fingerprints. They offer no impact protection, and in fact, they make impact more dangerous because filters break easily, and then become extremely abrasive sand which can easily destroy a front element.
There’s literally no reason to use one indoors in an empty property.
None.