Lens filters..talk me through them please

L

Lazgoat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
63
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I'm wondering whether circular UV filters are really necessary these days?
Firstly, are they really necessary with modern lens coatings or are they more of an insurance/damage limitation tool?

Considering protection for the front element (rain dust etc) what level of quality should I be buying? The two lenses are 77mm (24-70 f2.8) and 67mm (70-300VR) diameters. Brands wise I'm looking at Hoya and Tiffen and price wise they vary hugely, from £7-60'ish

Is this Tiffen filter ok or should I be looking at spending more on a different one, in which case which do you recommend?

Similarly with the 67mm filter, the Tiffen varies from £7 to £44 for a Hoya one? Any ideas here?

Thanks
 
You have expensive lenses if you are going to bother with UV 'Protection' filters then you should by the absolute best you can afford.
 
I personally use the Hoya Pro-1 filters.

UV doesn't really affect digital sensors, I'm told, so there's no point in using the filters for that. I've done comparisons with and without, and haven't noticed a difference in image quality. I'm told the Pro-1 are really good compared to the cheaper ones. They're thinner, so they have less impact on image quality (especially with wider lenses).

If I remember correctly, you're looking at £30-40 for a 77mm Pro1. Retail shops will charge more - I think Jessops charge £50-60.
 
Nikon NC (clear) are the best out there for protection (some would argue B+W models). If you're buying on eBay only do so from reputable sellers, lots of fake filters going around.
 
I got a Nikon one with my 300mm f/4 AF-S years ago and it's great. For my more recent purchases that use 77mm filters I've gone with the B+W UV filters. MUCH less flare than any other filters I've seen and no noticable image degradation (which are the two main risks with filters besides vignetting).

The Nikon one I got while I was living in the US and I think it was about $90 at the time. The B+W ones I use are £69 each I think.
 
The debate on this has been going round and round for years. Search my user name and Arkady for the full monty.

Summary: a UV filter does nothing, it is only for protection. Even the best filters can and do cause image degradation; it is usually invisible, sometimes very visible. If you feel the pros outweight the cons, then get the best available. A lens hood offers good protection and enhances image quality in some situations.

Basically, if you work in risky environments then fit a protection filter. If you don't, don't.
 
Hoppy pretty much got it spot on.

I got the UV filter for my 300 when I got it as I was often out shooting alligators from a kayak in the middle of a lake (and I was still occasionally shooting my film body). If I was going to be getting dirty water splashes coming back at me (as I often did), I'd rather it be on a $90 filter than a $1400 lens.

Now it's mostly out of habit that I use them, although there are dirty times when I'm definitely glad I've got them with me. :)
 
I just bought a Canon 100mm macro L IS lens and a B&W clear protection filter. I grovel around on the ground a lot with this lens and often the lens hood, which is gargantuan, is a real hinderance, so I bought the best I could afford. No point in buying a lens of that quality and then putting a the bottom of a coke bottle on the front of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top