Cheap UV filters, Avoid ?

Borats Baby

Borats Baby

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,126
Name
Rikki
Edit My Images
Yes
I've seen loads of UV filters on ebay for a couple of quid, mostly chinese !

Should these be avoided at all cost, or are they worth a punt ?

Thanks in advance
 
It's pretty simple really. You paid good dosh for lens glass of top quality, ground to incredible tolerances of accuracy and with each separate lens element multi coated to increase light transmission and give the best colour, resolution, sharpness and contrast to your images. Sticking a cheap piece of glass in front of it will protect the lens, but at a price in lost image quality which can be a heavy price to pay.

I prefer not to use protection filters, but if you do they need to be of the highest optical quality glass and they aint cheap! ;)
 
I agree CT....

Quite often on a forum someone will singing the praises of a cheap filter that "saved" their expensive lens. What the hell's it been doing to their expensive lens until they broke it !

Bob
 
CT said:
the highest optical quality glass and they aint cheap! ;)
Click to expand...

Unless you buy from HK. ;) I got my B&W F-Pro filters for about £10. :thumbs:

Canon Bob said:
What the hell's it been doing to their expensive lens until they broke it !

Bob
Click to expand...

I use filters on all my lenses as I can never guarantee im going to be in a situation where I can keep the front element safe. I might be crawling through bushes, or battling my way through crowds of people where despite my best efforts to keep my kit safe, accidents can easily happen. I also use the lens hood for protection, but on lenses like the 10-20mm, the hood does little in the way of providing any protection. Each to their own I suppose, but for me a filter provides more benefit than downsides.
 
Expensive glass, cheap filter, not a good combination.
 
I use Jessops filters and haven't had any problems with them.
 
Well all I'm going to say is that if I shoot through my very expensive double glazing glass I lose one whole stop of speed and the loss in contrast and resolution is awful.

If you're using a very cheap filter you owe it to yourself to do some test shots with and without the filter. You may be surprised. ;)
 
I will preface this by saying that when I travel, I usually have a few UV filters on my lenses, and a few of my lenses usually have a filter live on them.

But have people who say that filters saved the lens, or protect their lens ever actually had an incident where they hit the front element of their lens directly? I have had quite a number of inicidents with the front element of my 70-200 and my 135 F2, where you would think that there would be damage, and there is none. These things are quite durable.

The main reason to have a UV filter, is that some of the Canon lenses don't complete their weather sealing untill a UV filter is put on (17-40 F4 for example).

For some lens the difference in contrast between having a UV filter and not can be very very noticable (100-400 for example). (I have multicoated UV filters only).
 
Thanks for all the replies, but what I meant to say was :

Should I spend £2 on a UV filter from an unknown brand, or £10+ on a well known brand.

I want one primarily to get better results rather than to protect my lens.
 
UV filters wont do much, if anything to aid your pictures. Mainly used for protection as said above. If its not protection you want then my advice would be not to bother using one.
 
foodpoison said:
UV filters do pretty much nothing to enhance photo quality.
Click to expand...

Nope. Among the many coatings on any decent modern lens is one for UV anyway,... so your UV filter is purely for protection.

Someone made the point quite rightly that a filter is needed to complete weather sealing to the front glass even on weather sealed lenses, so in very wet condition it would be advisable to use one.
 
ok chaps, thanks for clearing that up.

The adverts I've seen are a bit misleading then as they show 2 pics that have been taken, 1 with and 1 without the filter, the pic taken with is less hazy than the one without. ?? :shrug:

Anyway, I dont think I'll bother after whats been said here, I'll trust you guys more than someone trying to sell me summat !!
 
I have a cheap UV filter on my 17-40mm and it made no diffrence to pictures quality I tested when bought cost me £4 of ebay, I only use them for peace of mind knowing my expensive bit of glass is at least protected abit.
 
Ste1976 said:
I have a cheap UV filter on my 17-40mm and it made no diffrence to pictures quality I tested when bought cost me £4 of ebay, I only use them for peace of mind knowing my expensive bit of glass is at least protected abit.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 is one of those lenses that hates UV filters (and ND filters to some degree too). This is sad as it needs the UV filter to complete the weather sealing, but if you shoot into any kind of sun, it flares like crazy with all four kinds of coated and non coated filters I have tried (mainly at the wide end). If you never really stretch this lens then you should not worry about it, but for any critical work, I strongly suggest you DON'T use a UV filter on this lens.
 
Thanks for the advice not really tested it in strong sunlight as there's hardly been any sun being winter & all, only bought it in November.

But if that is the case then it will come off, nothing lost with it only costing £4 then only use it to seal it up better on those dull drizzley days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top