Inexpensive Protection filter, where to buy?

You will need a 67mm according to the lens specifications.

Personally I would spend as much as I could afford on a decent filter as the poorer quality will reduce the images that you might achieve.

Have you rummaged around here and read the reviews?
 
Cheapest filter is a sheet of clim-film. Optically on a par with cheaper so-called 'protective' filters.
 
Unless you intend going in the desert or like trying to whack the front of your lens against something I don't see the point.

I've never used a Protection filter yet and I've never damaged a lens.

Looking after your kit costs nothing.


( Now I will duck and wait for the flack ) :bonk:

PS I use only Canon L glass and boy do I look after it. :thumbs:
 
ChrisH said:
Unless you intend going in the desert or like trying to whack the front of your lens against something I don't see the point.

I've never used a Protection filter yet and I've never damaged a lens.

Looking after your kit costs nothing.


( Now I will duck and wait for the flack ) :bonk:

PS I use only Canon L glass and boy do I look after it. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

You may be looking after it fine but on a rally shoot you couldn't account for a stray stone flicking up and landing on the end of your camera. I'd much rather replace a £20 filter than a £500 lens. ;)
 
potential flamewar, so let's avoid it...people get hilariously and depressingly obsessed with whether or not to use a UV filter!
 
I've just ordered this one -Hoya 67mm HMC Haze UV Screw in Filter for £15.65 from 7 day shop on Amazon Marketplace. Delivery is free. It was cheaper if ordered through Amazon, than if you order direct from 7 day shop. Best price I could find anywhere.
 
I have no intention of starting a flamewar it isn't in my nature.

Jack if a stone flies up from a tyre it will probably be traveling at over 100mph, it that hits your lens a thin filter won't stop it

It's down to horses for courses, I'll continue not to stick a peice of inferior glass on my lens and take the chance.

If your going to get one though cheapest isn't the way to go :D

If you want to do anything always use your lenshood, your more likely to drop your camera and that will save your lens :D
 
Last edited:
ChrisH said:
I have no intention of starting a flamewar it isn't in my nature.

Jack if a stone flies up from a tyre it will probably be traveling at over 100mph, it that hits your lens a thin filter won't stop it

It's down to horses for courses, I'll continue not to stick a peice of inferior glass on my lens and take the chance.

If your going to get one though cheapest isn't the way to go :D

If you want to do anything always use your lenshood, your more likely to drop your camera and that will save your lens :D
Click to expand...


Don't be ridiculous - that's what neck straps and making sure you fall backwards are for! :D


1 of mine came with a jessops UV filter on it 2nd hand, the other I got thrown in for free and that's a Camlink one, so I have 1 on both - I've done some pics with and without on each and I can't see any difference, good or bad, so I've decided I may as well leave them on.

I am in an area though where I may be in sandy places a fair bit and I think for that they may be a good idea just so sand doesn't get on your good lens, also if I'm a little careless one day it's a £20 that's scratched not a £200 - 400 lens.


I'd say if you just want it for protection, go for maybe a £15 - £20 one that won't degrade your pictures, at worst you've wasted £20!
 
I said inexpensive not cheap!

I don't mind spending £20... I just need advice on a filter that wouldn't reduce image quality.

My main point of buying some sort of protection is that my glass will remain in mint condition if ever I should sell it on.
 
Buy the best you can and hope to goodness it does not degrade the image. I nearly binned a perfectly good Canon 70-200f4L because I could not get a sharp image out of it. Took the filter off and sharper than a very sharp thing in a sharp place!

I do still keep a set just in case I need to shoot somewhere I'd feel safer with a filter on (I do sometimes shoot on building sites full of concrete dust) but I leave them off everytime I realistically can.
 
Marumi filters are cheap and of ok quality

99% of cheap Kenko filters are not genuine and Not multicoated (just cheap plastic)
 
Last edited:
Peach said:
I don't mind spending £20... I just need advice on a filter that wouldn't reduce image quality.
Click to expand...

There's no such animal.
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will degrade image quality to some extent.
  • The severity of this degradation will tend to decrease as the filter cost increases.
  • Very good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most circumstances.
  • Even the best filter will cause noticeable degradation in some situations.
If you insist on using 'protective' filters then use the best you can afford and recognise situations where they need to be removed.
 
hollis_f said:
£20 is cheap - and almost certainly nasty.
Click to expand...

:agree:


Like others, I prefer no filter at all, unless I am in a situation where flying stones or similar would be an issue - the lens hood is more than adequate in 'normal' circumstances. Any protection a £20 filter is going to offer is generally not worth it balanced against loss on IQ, just imo of course. It really is personal preference.
 
Is there a lens-hood supplied with the Tamron? The rubbery ones usually protect quite well of bashes.
 
If you have a Canon (you do) be prepared for it to have an effect on your focussing.

If you have a Nikon, you'll be fine.

This is after extensive research on here. The only people who have quality issues use Canon. Ask Arkady...............


(puts on flack jacket and waits for the fun to fly)
 
Peach said:
I said inexpensive not cheap!

I don't mind spending £20... I just need advice on a filter that wouldn't reduce image quality.

My main point of buying some sort of protection is that my glass will remain in mint condition if ever I should sell it on.
Click to expand...

I've read many threads these past months and decided when I got my Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - which has a lots of exposed front element - that ......

1......you dont need UV per se on digital sensor
2..... Hoya UV have some reports they are hard to clean
3..... "Hoppy" advocates Hoya HD series
i have a 52mm Hoya HD Protector - agreed, brilliant but not cheap

so I bought a MARUMI 72mm DHG Protector slimline - based on being VERY pleased with their C.PL which I chose after reading "this" report

you can get a 67mm DHG Protector slimline..."here" for £17
 
haha

sorry about the signature..:exit:
 
The Calumet ones are pretty good in my experience, I have one on my 50mm and having done some tests I can't see any difference with or without it. I've had the glass come loose in two Hoya ones which is a little diconcerting. Asolutely without question you're better off without one (optically) if you can get away with it. I shoot in all sorts of horrid places so I can't.
 
lawrie29 said:
If you have a Canon (you do) be prepared for it to have an effect on your focussing.
Click to expand...

On the rare occasions I have had reason to use one It has NEVER effected my focussing :shrug:Maybe you could qualify that statement lawrie.

There is some speculation as to the effect it may or may not have on Bokeh. As people have already said all filters will have some negative effect on IQ. However with the better filters it would require pixel peeping to notice under most circumstances.

Buy the best you can afford if you need to use one.

lawrie29 said:
If you have a Nikon, you'll be fine.

This is after extensive research on here. The only people who have quality issues use Canon. Ask Arkady...............
Click to expand...

Then why do Nikon users not routinely use filters?
 
Last edited:
My extensive research is based on comments on this forum. If you search about a bit, you will find lots of questions about filteres affecting focussing (i had this on my fuji when using it in Macro mode) and it seems to be affecting canon's the most.
Arkady, a nikon user in a harsh environment, swears by Hoya filters, and they never affect his shots, hence the Nikon comments.

TBH Filters shouldn't affect any cameras focussing, but they do. And I was trying to bait Arkady a little, who normally has plenty to say on the subject ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top