What lens filter should I get? (Page 2): It's the "somewhat" reference that should be a concern to those hoping to protect their lens.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

jerryc41 wrote:

I use Hoya clear filters with the Xume magnetic adapter. the "filter" protect the lens somewhat, but I can pop it on and off in less than a second.

https://www.amazon.com/Xume-Lens-Adapter-77mm-Holders/dp/B00F8VWGV2

It's the "somewhat" reference that should be a concern to those hoping to protect their lens.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

None. The most useful filter when using digital is a polarizer and the polarizer filter to me is useless with such wide angle lens. Polarization of part of the sky would be the result of using the polarizer with your lens.
I have discussed this many times in the forum, a UV filter is not made for lens "protection." You should be better off keeping the lens cap and a lens shade on the lens at all times.

Jwshelton Loc: Denver,CO

Knock on wood; I have been shooting seriously for over 30 years.
Have never kept a filter on just to protect a lens.
Never have had an issues.
Been to Africa twice, multiple trips to Europe, Australia, New Zealand,
South America and Alaska and the lower 48.

Agree that a cheap filter is worse than no filter.

That said, your comfort level will dictate
your final decision.

Good shooting!

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Mac wrote:

No filter is better than a cheap filter.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Mac wrote:

No filter is better than a cheap filter.

I do not agree. For example, if the only way I can achieve a particular image is by using a polarizing filter, I'd rather have a cheap filter than no filter at all. Oftentimes, the difference between using a cheap filter and an expensive filter is not that big, or even noticeable at all. Of course the typical sales person at the camera shop will try to make you believe otherwise.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rook2c4 wrote:

I do not agree. For example, if the only way I can achieve a particular image is by using a polarizing filter, I'd rather have a cheap filter than no filter at all. Oftentimes, the difference between using a cheap filter and an expensive filter is not that big, or even noticeable at all. Of course the typical sales person at the camera shop will try to make you believe otherwise.

I think he was referring to UV or clear protective filters, not CPLs.

rrwilliams64

A nice review of filters on Lenstip.com

The Hoya HMC Super UV-0 filters show to be a "good bang for the buck" for UV filters
https://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

For polarizing filters, the Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D series is highly acclaimed and reasonably priced
https://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

Grimmster Loc: New Jersey

camerapapi pegged it. CPF is a "must" for your bag, save up for a b+w. Skip the UV, A lens shade is you best protection.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

A UV filter actually does very little "protecting" and the UV filtration isn't necessary with digital imaging, the way it was with film.

If you think a thin piece of glass is somehow going to "save" your lens... watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Obvious in that video (where someone actually tests the efficacy and usefulness of "protection" filters), lenses are "tougher" than most people think and a "protection" filter is largely a waste of money (and "protection" was not the reason we used UV, sky, and 81A, 81B warming filters frequently with film... we used them because most color film was overly sensitive to UV light, causing a bluish tint in images).

Use the correct lens hood and the cap that came with the lens. Either of those will do a much better job of protection than a thin piece of glass ever could! In fact, when using a filter, you should be even more faithful about using the hood and cap... to protect the filter!

A quality Circular Polarizer is a much more useful filter enhancing images and far better use of your money (though a C-Pol also should not be left on a lens most of the time, only installed when actually needed and serving a purpose... a C-Pol can "cost" as much as 2 stops of light, which may force you to unnecessarily use too high an ISO or too slow a shutter speed).

At B&H Photo and Adorama (and maybe elsewhere)... B+W "Kaesemann" C-Pol are among the least expensive of the highest quality C-Pol.

Fore example, in 77mm size the B+W "F-Pro" (Schott glass, sealed edges, finer foils, high transmissive, 8-layer MRC multi-coated, brass frame) is about $80

And the slimmer B+W "XS-Pro" (same as above, but slimmer frame and 16-layer "Nano MRC" multi-coated) 77mm is just over $100. The most comparable other brand (Heliopan... nearly identical specs) cost more than 2X as much. Heck, even Hoya of similar quality are at least 50% more expensive.

All the above said, yes I have UV filters to fit my lenses. They were pretty low priority for me and I only rarely use them, but I added them to my kit a little at a time "just in case". I store them separately in my bag until actually needed, on odd occasions when they might actually serve a purpose... such as when out shooting in a sand storm or when shooting at the beach with a lot of salt spray in the air (I'd rather clean that off a filter than off a lens). As a result, probably 98% of the time or more the UV filters remain in my camera bag and I'm either using my lenses with other, actually useful filters or without any filter at all most of the time... But almost always with hood while shooting and capped when stored. Some lenses in my "daily user" kit are 15+ years old ... while some vintage lenses I use are many decades old. None of them show any issues due to lack of "protection" while making tens or hundreds of thousands of images.

If you still want a UV and have money to burn on a rarely needed filter, once again the B+W are a great value for their quality. The last time I looked, the standard "010" MRC (Schott glass, 8-layer MC, brass frame) in 77mm is $40 and "010" XS-Pro (slim, 16-layer "Nano" MC) 77mm is about $5 more. (Note: B+W also makes less expensive "SC" or single coated filters. I don't use those.)

BTW, the Lenstips comparisons and prices that were linked in an earlier response above are horribly out of date (were done in 2009).

And, yes, a "cheap" filter can be a nightmare. When I hire second shooters who will be using their own gear, I ask them to remove any filters. I can recall one who didn't listen and put me in a position where I had to correct green flare issues in nearly all 1200 images he took! That was many hours of extra work for no good reason. Cheap filters also can effect resolution and sharpness... can even interfere with focus accuracy and increase chromatic aberrations. High quality, multi-coated filters are a better bet, but even they can have some negative effects in challenging lighting conditions. Some people say, "Well, I'll just remove the filter in those situations." Yeah, right! I bet! Personally I would have no time to stop shooting and remove a filter... if I remembered to do so. To me it makes far more sense to do it the other way around... .shoot filterless and add a filter when actually needed.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

mwsilvers wrote:

I think he was referring to UV or clear protective filters, not CPLs.

Same thing applies. If I'm photographing in a sandstorm, I'd rather have a cheap UV filter on my lens than none at all.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Longshadow wrote:

For everyday use, a UV.
A CPL has it's applications, but not as an all the time filter.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

mborn wrote:

Great price for a good clear filter

Older Nikon filters are uncoated. The newer "II" series Nikon filters have multi-coatings.

Same or even worse is true of Canon and other camera-branded filters..... They're typically okay, but significantly high priced for lower quality (and probably aren't made by the camera manufacturer anyway.... but are outsourced from one of the filter makers).

When I can get a top-of-the-line, 77mm 16-layer multi-coated B+W XS-Pro UV 010 for $46.... Why in the world would I ever spend $60 on an uncoated, 77mm Canon "Protect" filter or $70 for the same size Nikon "NC" with unspecified multi-coatings?

Mundj Loc: Richmond TX

Dziadzi wrote:

I have always been a believer in having a filter on my camera lenses to protect the main lens. Usually a UV filter. Since I am not a wealthy man, I must keep the filter cost below $100, preferably less than $50. So, my question of my colleagues is, what lens filter should I get for my Nikon 10-24mm NIKKOR AF-S DX F/3.5-4.5G ED? 77mm

You might check out breakthrough photography . The have some impressive specs for their filters. https://breakthrough.photography/

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

amfoto1 wrote:

A UV filter actually does very little "protecting" and the UV filtration isn't necessary with digital imaging, the way it was with film.

If you think a thin piece of glass is somehow going to "save" your lens... watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Obvious in that video (where someone actually tests the efficacy and usefulness of "protection" filters), lenses are "tougher" than most people think and a "protection" filter is largely a waste of money (and "protection" was not the reason we used UV, sky, and 81A, 81B warming filters frequently with film... we used them because most color film was overly sensitive to UV light, causing a bluish tint in images).

Use the correct lens hood and the cap that came with the lens. Either of those will do a much better job of protection than a thin piece of glass ever could! In fact, when using a filter, you should be even more faithful about using the hood and cap... to protect the filter!

A quality Circular Polarizer is a much more useful filter enhancing images and far better use of your money (though a C-Pol also should not be left on a lens most of the time, only installed when actually needed and serving a purpose... a C-Pol can "cost" as much as 2 stops of light, which may force you to unnecessarily use too high an ISO or too slow a shutter speed).

At B&H Photo and Adorama (and maybe elsewhere)... B+W "Kaesemann" C-Pol are among the least expensive of the highest quality C-Pol.

Fore example, in 77mm size the B+W "F-Pro" (Schott glass, sealed edges, finer foils, high transmissive, 8-layer MRC multi-coated, brass frame) is about $80

And the slimmer B+W "XS-Pro" (same as above, but slimmer frame and 16-layer "Nano MRC" multi-coated) 77mm is just over $100. The most comparable other brand (Heliopan... nearly identical specs) cost more than 2X as much. Heck, even Hoya of similar quality are at least 50% more expensive.

All the above said, yes I have UV filters to fit my lenses. They were pretty low priority for me and I only rarely use them, but I added them to my kit a little at a time "just in case". I store them separately in my bag until actually needed, on odd occasions when they might actually serve a purpose... such as when out shooting in a sand storm or when shooting at the beach with a lot of salt spray in the air (I'd rather clean that off a filter than off a lens). As a result, probably 98% of the time or more the UV filters remain in my camera bag and I'm either using my lenses with other, actually useful filters or without any filter at all most of the time... But almost always with hood while shooting and capped when stored. Some lenses in my "daily user" kit are 15+ years old ... while some vintage lenses I use are many decades old. None of them show any issues due to lack of "protection" while making tens or hundreds of thousands of images.

If you still want a UV and have money to burn on a rarely needed filter, once again the B+W are a great value for their quality. The last time I looked, the standard "010" MRC (Schott glass, 8-layer MC, brass frame) in 77mm is $40 and "010" XS-Pro (slim, 16-layer "Nano" MC) 77mm is about $5 more. (Note: B+W also makes less expensive "SC" or single coated filters. I don't use those.)

BTW, the Lenstips comparisons and prices that were linked in an earlier response above are horribly out of date (were done in 2009).

And, yes, a "cheap" filter can be a nightmare. When I hire second shooters who will be using their own gear, I ask them to remove any filters. I can recall one who didn't listen and put me in a position where I had to correct green flare issues in nearly all 1200 images he took! That was many hours of extra work for no good reason. Cheap filters also can effect resolution and sharpness... can even interfere with focus accuracy and increase chromatic aberrations. High quality, multi-coated filters are a better bet, but even they can have some negative effects in challenging lighting conditions. Some people say, "Well, I'll just remove the filter in those situations." Yeah, right! I bet! Personally I would have no time to stop shooting and remove a filter... if I remembered to do so. To me it makes far more sense to do it the other way around... .shoot filterless and add a filter when actually needed.

A UV filter actually does very little "protec... (show quote)

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Dziadzi wrote:

I have always been a believer in having a filter on my camera lenses to protect the main lens. Usually a UV filter. Since I am not a wealthy man, I must keep the filter cost below $100, preferably less than $50. So, my question of my colleagues is, what lens filter should I get for my Nikon 10-24mm NIKKOR AF-S DX F/3.5-4.5G ED? 77mm

The mid-range Hoya filters are excellent and within your budget. I think they are better than some of the highly touted filters like B+W