frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

UV not Such......these spell checkers think too much sometimes.

dyximan

I understood your question, people on here can be a little ?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, UV filters are largely a waste of money for digital photography. There is no need to filter out UV (that's built right into digital sensors). Some people like to use them to "protect" their lens.... but it's pretty silly to expect a thin piece of glass to provide much in the way of "protection". The lens cap and lens hood provided with it actually do a far better job "protecting" a lens. That said, I have them for most of my lenses and I keep them stored separately until actually needed, at times when the filter might actually serve a purpose (such as out shooting in a sandstorm or at the beach when there's salt spray in the air).

There are a lot of opinions for and against using UV and other types of "protection" filters. Most of them are based upon little factual information and guesswork. I used UV, "sky", "skylight" and "warming" filters almost always back in the days of film, when they were really needed. A lot of people assumed that the reason photographers did that was to protect their lenses, but it wasn't. It was because most films were overly sensitive to UV light, which caused a bluish color cast or "haze" in film images. But this is not a problem with digital. So now the filters are really only being used for some mythical "protection".

There haven't been many real world tests of the protective value of filters.... But here's one. I recommend you view this video and decide for yourself if UV filters are worth the money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Polarizing filters are another matter. They remain one of the most useful filters for digital photography... can deepen the blue of the sky, improve color saturation, reduce reflections, etc., etc. It's not something you should use all the time (typical polarizing filter reduces light passing through by up to 2 stops, which forces you to use slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISOs than necessary in low light situations). There are also times when a reflection is important to an image and something would be lost using a polarizing filter.

With modern autofocus cameras, "circular" polarizers are necessary. "Old style" linear polarizers shouldn't be used because they will interfere with AF systems... and even can effect some metering systems. C-Pols aren't necessary for some types of photography, but can be very beneficial at times for others. For example, I use them a lot on wide angle and normal lenses that I frequently use for scenic shots. I also sometimes use them on short telephotos I use for portraiture, they can be helpful when people have "shiny" skin or wear eyeglasses (but have to be used carefully because "catchlight" reflections in eyes are important... makes people and animals look animated and alive... without a catchlight they'll look like a corpse!) OTOH, I almost never use a C-Pol on stronger telephotos or macro lenses. You might be able to just buy a C-Pol for one or two particular lenses in your kit, may not need them for others.

So I'd say that UV filters are low priority... while a circular polarizer can be high priority.

And, it's ALWAYS best to buy high quality, multi-coated filters. Those will make for the best images. It makes no sense to spend hundreds or even thousands on lenses and then stick cheap, image-spoiling pieces of glass in front of them. Take a shot of something through your car window... Then roll the window down and take another shot. Compare the two shots side by side to see what glass an do to an image! A cheap, uncoated filter might not be as bad as a car window, but it ain't gonna be as good as a quality, multi-coated filter!

I recommend B+W MRC C-Pol and B+W Kaesemann C-Pol. They're among the most affordable of top quality, multi-coated filters available. They are made by Schneider-Kreuznach, a German company with 100+ years history for ultra high quality lenses and optics. They do make cheaper single and uncoated filters, too... But I recommend spending just a little more to get the MRC or Nano-MRC type, which have 8-layer or 16-layer coatings, respectively. The "latest and greatest" Nano-MRC are a bit more resistant to dust, fingerprints, etc. and are easier to clean. All their filters use high quality Schott glass and, I think, all use brass frames that are less prone to galling and getting stuck on metal barrel lens threads than the aluminum that many other manufacturers use. The "Kaesemann" use a finer polarizing foil and have additional sealing for weather resistance.

At B&H Photo in NY, B+W circular polarizers in 77mm diameter cost...

$70 for "SC" or single coated.
$75 for "MRC".
$79 for "F-Pro Kaesemann MRC High Transmissive"
$102 for "XS-Pro Kaesemann Nano-MRC High Transmissive Slim"

"High Transmissive" are a relatively new type of C-Pol that is a lighter gray to allow a bit more light in... cost about 1.5 stops maximum.

"Slim" filters use a thinner frames and are sometimes needed for very wide angle lenses to avoid vignetting. But they tend to cost more and can be a little harder to grip to install and remove from the lens. The standard frames B+W uses are already pretty thin. I've never seen any vignetting issues even on ultrawide lenses that I've used with B+W's standard frame filters.

To get the same level of quality as those B+W filters mentioned above in other brands, you will usually need to spend a little or a lot more. Some brands charge twice as much for their C-Pol and may not be as good or any better. So while I recommend spending for high quality, multi-coated... I also recommend shopping around and comparing carefully. I've also used and still use Hoya, Heliopan and some other brands of filters.

Of course B+W also makes UV filters (which they call "010"), if you still want one. At B&H Photo in NY, 77mm size cost...

$29 for "SC" single coated.
$43 for "MRC" with 8-layer multi-coating.
$46 for "XS-Pro Nano-MRC Slim" with 16-layer multi-coating and thinner frame.

Hope this helps!