Best lens filters for my RF 24-70 f2.8: I usually shot street photography and events. I have used Hoya UV filters for my 77mm lens. I am going from77mm to 82mm and would appreciate any...

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I usually shot street photography and events. I have used Hoya UV filters for my 77mm lens. I am going from77mm to 82mm and would appreciate any recommendations. I heard not to go too cheap yet I need to keep a budget... "want best bang for my buck".
Thanks,
Jim

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

A fair compromise would be B+W used, but in really good condition.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Orphoto wrote:

A fair compromise would be B+W used, but in really good condition.

Ken Rockwell sez as part of the review of the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS: The very best protective filter is the 82mm Hoya multicoated HD3 UV which uses hardened glass and repels dirt and fingerprints. $98.00/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=Hoya%2082mm%20EVO%20Antistatic%20UV(0)%20Filter&sts=ma

The other filter he recommends is the "B+W 95mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter" is No Longer Available
best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends

PS: I have/use the Hoya HD3 UV above and it works well

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Jimmy T wrote:

Ken Rockwell sez as part of the review of the Cano... (show quote)

Thanks so much Jimmy. I really appreciate all the info.

User ID

junglejim1949 wrote:

I usually shot street photography and events. I have used Hoya UV filters for my 77mm lens. I am going from77mm to 82mm and would appreciate any recommendations. I heard not to go too cheap yet I need to keep a budget... "want best bang for my buck".
Thanks,
Jim

Why not continue with what youve ben using ? Is Hoya not offering it in 82mm ?

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

User ID wrote:

Why not continue with what youve ben using ? Is Hoya not offering it in 82mm ?

B&W and Hoya were both recommended.
Hoya offers multicoated HD 3 and a NXT Plus @ different price points...
That is why

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

It can be confusing

(Download)

User ID

junglejim1949 wrote:

It can be confusing

$166 is for nerdy imaginations. Between the other two I would go the extra $16 without knowing exactly why. Just barely pocket lint

OTOH, bump that $16 up to $25 and youve got a Nikon filter. Ive had a Nikon 95mm UV on a Canon lens for years, and to date there has been no rejection nor immune response.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

junglejim1949 wrote:

I usually shot street photography and events. I have used Hoya UV filters for my 77mm lens. I am going from77mm to 82mm and would appreciate any recommendations. I heard not to go too cheap yet I need to keep a budget... "want best bang for my buck".
Thanks,
Jim

If you want the best bang for your buck don't get a filter. Your front element is much stronger than you might think. Please watch the following video and maybe you will forget the UV filter.
I have never used a clear filter. Use your lens the way it was designed, WITH THE LENS HOOD. It is all the protection you will need.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
But is this not convince you that you do not need a UV filter, don't spend a lot of money on one, they all do the same thing. DUH!!! Tiffin makes really good ones at a good price. DUH!!!

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

User ID wrote:

$166 is for nerdy imaginations. Between the other two I would go the extra $16 without knowing exactly why. Just barely pocket lint

OTOH, bump that $16 up to $25 and youve got a Nikon filter. Ive had a Nikon 95mm UV on a Canon lens for years, and to date there has been no rejection nor immune response.

I agree $16 bucks is not much but I still wonder what is the benefit?

Canisdirus

junglejim1949 wrote:

I agree $16 bucks is not much but I still wonder what is the benefit?

There is no benefit to a UV filter today...other than protection.

If that's all you are looking for...protection...just get a clear filter...way cheaper...same results.

Otherwise...ND and a CPL...the only two filters needed in mirrorless...if that.

agillot

NONE , modern lenses are UV corrected[ coating ] . On the other hand at time a polariser ?? for clouds , or bad flares [ windows . For B/W a yellow filter .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

billnikon wrote:

If you want the best bang for your buck don't get a filter.

.......this was my very FIRST thought ! No, I do not agree with Rockwell - only on this subject - as mentioned this is for nerdy nerds to worry about - like Rockwell - a culmination of his nerdiness.

User ID

junglejim1949 wrote:

I agree $16 bucks is not much but I still wonder what is the benefit?

The big benefit is that you get to tell Billnikon that you not only dissed him by buying a filter but that you even spent a whole extra $16 on it without his approval ;-)

----------------------------------------------

Youd think that by now the all of the anti filter Boznerds would have learned that all three of them can loudly agree with each other but the rest of the world knows they are just a cult of stubborn Bozos.

The funny thing is that they are right. Most filters go thru life 100% intact, proving that they werent really needed ... and also, filters can actually be detected nibbling away at IQ. The even more funnier thing is that they are cultishly dedicated to making others believe that any of that really matters :-)

If we would all put $1 per personal lens in a communal pot instead of buying $50 or $100 filters, there would be more than enuf $$ in the pot to buy new replacement lenses for those unlucky few whose lenses actually get damaged in normal use or by acts of gods.

Bill_de Loc: US

junglejim1949 wrote:

I usually shot street photography and events. I have used Hoya UV filters for my 77mm lens. I am going from77mm to 82mm and would appreciate any recommendations. I heard not to go too cheap yet I need to keep a budget... "want best bang for my buck".
Thanks,
Jim

Best lens filters for my RF 24-70 f2.8

Are there different 'best filters' for different lenses?

---