UV filter
Nov 20, 2014 23:26:26 #
Nov 20, 2014 23:36:43 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
Hold on for the ride Tommy.
Being serious this time.
This question for some weird reason arouses the complete apoplectic ire from some people on this site.
They do not think we should be putting anything whatsoever in front of our lenses.
I am not one of those people.
A UV filter is probably unnecessary (for it to be UV).
A clear protective glass filter will do the job just as well.
But a UV filter is easy to find and can do the same job.
Personally I would recommend a circular polariser.
Brand - best you can afford.
Cheap filters can degrade and soften your image.
My recommendation would be B+W, or Hoya Pro.
Brass filter threads are more user friendly, less likely to bind.
I think that leaves you with the B+W Kaesman.
I would not recommend Tiffen, Hi Tech, or any of the cheap brands.
You will find that others will chastise me for not recommending Tiffen as they have had one since Methusalah was a pup and its always done OK for them, and they can thoroughly recommend it because they have never compared it to anything else.
Nov 21, 2014 00:12:26 #
Nov 21, 2014 00:22:06 #
I have both cheap and expensive brands, and I honestly cannot see the difference in terms of image softening. The results are virtually identical. What will have far more impact on image than brand is if the filter is clean or grimy. Where there is a difference between brands is how the filter handles light flares, with the flare effects often a little more pronounced and colored on cheaper filters.
Nov 21, 2014 00:30:57 #
For a 62mm circular polarizer from Sigma for my 18-270mm lens I paid appox $65.00 and pleased with the quality and results.
Pete
Pete
Nov 21, 2014 00:44:08 #
Nov 21, 2014 01:02:35 #
Nov 21, 2014 02:13:16 #
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
recently acquired a Zeta/Kenko/Hoya-D UV filter.
Build is excellent. specs look good and price was reasonable.
Nov 21, 2014 04:36:18 #
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
If you are looking for a filter to protect your lens from damage, then UV isn't necessary.
I use, and like B+W multicoated clear filters.
I've done extensive pixel-peeping tests to see if they degrade the image quality and I found that they didn't (to any detectable degree)
I'd be the FIRST one to take them off if they did...but they didn't.
What they MIGHT do is flare some when you turn towards the sunlight or other light.
Nov 21, 2014 04:54:51 #
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
Tommy, most modern cameras don't need a UV.
For protection use an NC(neutral clear). They are clear and as the name implies, neutral.
Personally, I use anything I can find used and cheap, usually UV's for $1-$2.
I don't shoot with them on. I use them like lens caps. And in a pinch I can shoot through them even if they are a little dirty.
If you are trying to get money shots, it's not worth ruining a shot.
Use a hood. Good luck. ;-)
SS
Nov 21, 2014 05:10:55 #
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
Hoya Pro HD Clear Protection Glass Filter
Nov 21, 2014 05:27:39 #
tommyf wrote:
For my 50mm, what brand and what features do you look for?
You don't need one for anything other than protecting your front element. You might want to look at this:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-uv_filters_test.html
Nov 21, 2014 07:36:50 #
No UV filter I know about is better than the coatings used on good lenses. I'd pass.
Nov 21, 2014 08:22:47 #
mtparker wrote:
No UV filter I know about is better than the coatings used on good lenses. I'd pass.
My original post asked about UV...actually it was in combination with my first post regarding using a lens hood. What makes sense to me is to protect the lens from damage as I am sure we all agree and that a UV is perhaps old technology (?). I recently read an article titled When to use a lens hood and forgot where I found the article. All of your answers point to this conclusion: use the hood basically for sun and lens protection...a UV is not necessary. Thanks people.
Nov 21, 2014 08:27:06 #
tommyf wrote:
My original post asked about UV...actually it was in combination with my first post regarding using a lens hood. What makes sense to me is to protect the lens from damage as I am sure we all agree and that a UV is perhaps old technology (?). I recently read an article titled When to use a lens hood and forgot where I found the article. All of your answers point to this conclusion: use the hood basically for sun and lens protection...a UV is not necessary. Thanks people.
If you are in a camera-hostile environment - beach, especially a windy day where particulates and salt spray can etch your front element - a hood will not be very helpful to protect the lens.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.