UV filters - what to get?

[Pink Dragonfly]

I'm ordering a Sony SAL-50F14 lens and I need a 55mm UV filter to go on it. The filters they sell at Pixmania (where I'm going to get the lens from) are Hama - anyone heard of those??? I think read somewhere that they were re-branded Hoya's? They have a standard filter and then one 50% more expensive, with High Transmission Multi Coating. Is this as good a thing as they say it is? I should say that this lens mainly will be used for portraits and also some low light stuff.

My local shop sells Jessops filters which I believe have a pretty good reputation.

Mette

[Ron Kruger]

Why do you think you "need" UV filters with this lens?

[Pink Dragonfly]

I've always been told it's a good idea to have a filter on your lens to protect the lens. Makes sense, as it's a lot cheaper to replace a scratched filter than a scratched lens.

Mette

[mjs1973]

Hey Mette,

There are two camps when it comes to using a "protection" filter. Those you use them, and those who don't. I fall into the don't category. Unless you are going to be in situations where there are going to be object getting thrown at you, I really don't think they are worth the hassle. If your in a place with lots of blowing sand or salt water, then I can see using them. A good lens hood, and the lens cap will protect your lens just as good, without any of the negative affects of an added piece of glass.

That being said, I have heard good things about the Hoya UV (0) filters, but since I don't use them, I can't say if they are any good or not. If you feel you do need to have a filter, get a good one.

[Dylan8i]

just yesterday my dad was pulling his jacket out of my back back on my back, and my 18-135 lense fell out of my pack on to cement (over 5 feet). i, luckly, had my lense hood on it (facing the correct way) and no filters. the lense cap popped off, and the hood cracked and got pushed back on to the lens... to the point i almost had to break it to get it off. the lense itself is fine (autofocuses fine, and is not scratched), the hood is in one piece but cracked (12$ to replace if i don't just tape it).

i don't think a filter would have saved the lens if it was just that. i would use a protective filter if, like mike said, your in blowing sand/salt anythign else like that.... but not in low light either.


the onyl filter i have for my digital lenses is a circular polarizer.

[AgingEyes]

There are two camps when it comes to using a "protection" filter. Those you use them, and those who don't.

And they don't agree with each other.

The group who advocate not using it say:
1. Filter degrade the image quality.
2. Lens hood is good enough to protect the front element.
3. Get insurance.

The group who use it says;
1. It's cheaper to replace a filter than the lens.
2. Lens hood cannot protect the front element from object flying right at it.
3. Insurance is not a protection. It's money you get for a replacement after your lens is ruined.
4. Theoretically filter could degrade the image quality, but realistically you cannot tell from the final photos. If you can't tell the difference, there's no difference.

Yep, true that your lens hood protect your lens to a certain extent, but there are people whose lens was saved by the filter also. One can say: "hey, you should have the lens hood on your lens all the time!" All the time? Accident happen and there's a reason it's called accident.

So, the two groups never agree.

IMO, if you have your good reason to use filter to protect your lens, use it. Because use it or not use it, it is you yourself who is going to deal with the consequences, not anyone else from either of the group.

Besides, those who don't use filter to protect the lens, my bet is they also use other filters such as polarizer and ND when taking pictures. And if you use those super-tele lenses, chances are they also come with a filter at the back and/or a protective lense at the front. I don't know if anyone take them off when using those lenses (I asked some from the "not use" group if they'd do so when shooting with their super tele and they did not reply).

Oh, if you do want to use filter, get the best you can.

Folks, back to your arguments

[gryphonslair99]

And they don't agree with each other.

The group who advocate not using it say:
1. Filter degrade the image quality.
2. Lens hood is good enough to protect the front element.
3. Get insurance.

The group who use it says;
1. It's cheaper to replace a filter than the lens.
2. Lens hood cannot protect the front element from object flying right at it.
3. Insurance is not a protection. It's money you get for a replacement after your lens is ruined.
4. Theoretically filter could degrade the image quality, but realistically you cannot tell from the final photos. If you can't tell the difference, there's no difference.

Yep, true that your lens hood protect your lens to a certain extent, but there are people whose lens was saved by the filter also. One can say: "hey, you should have the lens hood on your lens all the time!" All the time? Accident happen and there's a reason it's called accident.

So, the two groups never agree.

IMO, if you have your good reason to use filter to protect your lens, use it. Because use it or not use it, it is you yourself who is going to deal with the consequences, not anyone else from either of the group.

Besides, those who don't use filter to protect the lens, my bet is they also use other filters such as polarizer and ND when taking pictures. And if you use those super-tele lenses, chances are they also come with a filter at the back and/or a protective lense at the front. I don't know if anyone take them off when using those lenses (I asked some from the "not use" group if they'd do so when shooting with their super tele and they did not reply).

Oh, if you do want to use filter, get the best you can.

Folks, back to your arguments

Sorry, I must have missed the invitation. But the mail is slow with the holidays and all. I am one of those only use a filter when it is necessary bunch and have been for 30+ years.

With my 400mm f2.8 from Canon the design has a piece of optical glass in the drop in filter holder, provided by Canon with the lens, as part of the optical design in the drop in filter slot. Canon instructs you to leave this in place, unless you are using a drop in filter, as it is part of the overall optical design of the lens and is suggested for optimum optical quality.

I have yet to see any lens manufacturer that calls an aftermarket screw on the front filter part of the design of their lens to provide optimum optical quality. The only time I put a piece of glass over the front of my lens for protection is on those rare occasions where I am shooting a college football game from the sidelines and the university still has a grass field instead of artificial turf. And only when the field is such that it is muddy. For me a filter for protection is only for when there is a real and direct need for protection at that point in time. Otherwise it is just another thing that can damage the front element of the lens. Broken glass does a very nice job of scratching other glass that it comes in contact with.

[Ron Kruger]

Years ago, I experiemented with a lot of filters for certain effects and used a polorizing filter most of the time, because I liked what it did to Kodachrome 25. But an old pro that befriended me once said: "If you've got a multi-coated, expensive lense, why would you want to put a cheap piece of glass in front of it?" That made a lot of sense to me, and I stopped using them as much, and gradually even phased out UV filters.
The coatings on today's lenses are even better, and I don't think filters are necessary or advantagous, unless you're going for some special effect.
I'm judging this, however, from a professional perspective. I shoot for publication in magazines, and that demands a higher degree of quality than any other application. If all you are doing is making prints or posting on the internet, I don't think you would be able to tell any difference in quality between the bare lens and a filtered lens, but I'd still buy the best filters I could find.

[susaan]

P.D,
Really glad you brought this up,its answering some questions I also have..

[EOSThree]

Accidents happen, equipment falls, stuff gets damaged. This is a very old argument and one that will never be resolved. The fact is that any piece of glass in front of the glass that the lens was designed with will degrade image quality. With a high quality filter this degradation is minimal, probably not visible, but it's there.

I have seen a test with a cheapo filter and a high quality filter. The cheapo was horrible, the high quality looked perfect. When a measure of luminance was made the cheapo destroyed information, the good filter change information ever so slightly. The minor change in luminance on the good filter wasn't visually noticeable, but when measured it was there.

My opinion is that filters are an easy upsale item at a camera store, they are relatively inexpensive and an easy argument can me made that they will "protect" your "expensive" lens....Sold! In reality a thin aluminum or brass ring(soft metal)with very thin glass(much thinner than your front element)will do little to protect your lens in the event of a fall, bump, ect. in fact when that filter breaks, the shards of glass may do damage to your front element.

A little scratch, or smudge on your front element does little if anything to image quality, although it may increase suceptiblity to flare. The main thing it does is effect resale value of the lens. Here's some food for thought. It's amazing the amount of damage a front element can take.

All that said, if you feel you must have a protective filter on your lens, buy a good one, B+W or Hoya's top line are decent and will do the least to change the image characteristics of the optics of your lens.

[Pink Dragonfly]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply And I'm glad to hear Susaan also found useful stuff in this thread

I must admit I had hoped to hear from some pro-filter users as well...My question wasn't really so much whether or not to use a filter but more which one to use, as I had decided that for most of my purposes I will use a filter. In the end I decided to go with the slightly more expensive of the Hama filters with the High Transmission Multi Coating. Maybe I'll do some test shots with and without the filter. For various reasons, I don't have insurance, apart from the camera which is insured against everything barring theft or disappearing somewhere. Perhaps I should have spent the money, not on the lens, but on insurance....

However, you have certainly made me think about taking off the filter when I'm in "controlled" conditions!

Thanks again, I hope you all have a great New Year

Mette