UV or other (which) protection filters?

[bob.velkov]

Hi there,

 

Just wondering what people use as lens protector and what is

the better choise for a 77mm Canon 17-40 f4 L lens

 

Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Glass Filter-Wide-Angle/Thin Filter Ring,

$ 37.65

or the

Hoya 77mm UV Haze (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter - Ultra Thin,

$ 52.50

 

I have heard about both theories, to always keep the filter on

in order to protect the lens and the other to not ruin optics

quality with filters in the front unless you have to work in a

sand storm. I am just unsure about if I should put a protector

filter on this new lens I've got recently, and if yes, which

one to choose the tiffen or the hoya model? What other filters

are you using as a general lens protection?

 

Thanks,

Bob.

[john_pavlakis]

I use the Tiffen, because it was cheaper. I keep it on at all times because it's easier to clean a filter than to clean a lens.

 

I subscribe to the theory that unless you use L lenses, clean your lenses and filters religously, and a always use a tripod, there are so many other ways to optically degrade your picture than not using multicoated filters or keeping a filter on at all times.

 

Filters can exaggerate lens flare, however. I was successfully able to Photoshop out some bad lens flare with the healing brush, so I am not concerned.

 

That's theory, does anyone have an objective test they may have made?

[nodrog]

These are the filters I use. Polerizer, 81a, split neutral density and uv filters. In a perfect world, nobody would ever have a lens damaged. If I didn't have a uv filter on a lens I dropped, the lens would have been ruined instead of the filter. All the filters I use are B+W.

[philmorris]

I'm always astonished when I read questions like this that for some reason, people seem to rule out using the lens cap that came with the lens for protection. Use a securely fitted lens cap to protect the front element; use a filter to manipulate the light. A lens cap will be a lot tougher and busting a lens cap is a lot cheaper than busting a filter.

 

I think camera retail shops are to blame for advancing the notion that for every lens purchased it would be a shame to have it ruined for the sake of the cost of a filter. I understand camera retail shops gross their largest mark up on filters. They buy them for a fraction of the price you pay for them in the shops. So if Nikon or whoever thought it would be smart to use a filter to protect the lens rather than a lens cap it wouldn't cost them much to supply one as standard.

 

If you still fancy a permanently fitted filter for some reason and shoot colour, choose a 81A or 81B; if black and white, a yellow.

[Brian]

I think the reason people favour the UV filter solution over and above the lens cap is that they can take a photo while the filter is in place, hence retaining protection during that all-important moment of exposure.

[jeff_lu]

i use b+w mrc uv filters...in my experience, the best....on most of my lenses, bar a couple

special ones.

 

i just hate seeing dust and little particles accumulate on the front element, making me fret

about when to clean, and if i do, how to minimise marks...so i save myself the trouble. it's

a personal thing. if you do go the filter route, i suggest a b+w mrc

filter...minimise the degradation, if any.

[wind.dk]

<P>FYI, for at least one of their lenses, Nikon does indeed provide a protective filter as standard. The 45/2.8P comes with a 52mm NC - once the hood is on you wouldn't even know it was there when looking into it (<A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/Berlinale54/Y04M02W07F4P34.crop">example of a picture I like, made using that lens, filter and dedicated hood</A>). As to why they don't do it with all lenses, you might as well ask why they don't supply lenses with all their camera bodies, or camera bags with them or cable releases with tripods or whatever else... Presumably it must be a bad idea to carry your equipment in a padded bag, use a cable release with a tripod or simply to have a lens on the camera <CODE>;)</CODE></P>

 

<P>And now to answer the question, I virtually always have a filter on my lenses, it may already have saved one of them. Mostly I use B&W so many of the filters have some colour. I use multicoated if given the choice, and mostly B+W and Nikon. Hmm, now I think about it, make that only B+W and Nikon, the one old Leica filter I have doesn't see much use and a few others of questionable origin aren't on any of my currently favoured lenses. My colour filters are B+W and my plain protective filters are Nikon L37c's. My polarizer is also a Nikon.</P>

 

<P>Depending on what you photograph, you could consider getting a polarizer as "protective" filter. It's a lot more than that, and you'll need to be aware of it's effect. Some people will tell you it's horrible to use a polarizer on a wide angle, as a rule <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/ottersjo/Y03M10W42FB3P08.scope">don't believe them</A> and just take off the filter for the shot, if it happens to have an undesirable effect.</P>

 

<P>Can I see a difference between filters? Between filters and no filters? Disregarding special effects (colour and polarization), I haven't bothered to investigate. Any flare - be it diffuse reduction of contrast or identifiable reflections - can usually be explained by dust, using a zoom with a gazillion elements, no hood or strong lights in view <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/pretentious/Y04Q2P30">or nearly in view</A>. The dust is of course much easier to clean off a flat filter than a curved lens, not to mention it's much cheaper to change the filter if you damage it when cleaning.</P>

[bob.velkov]

Anyone used Canon filters as protection, something like this one?

<br>

<a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=213212&is=REG>77mm Haze UV-1 Glass Filter (L-39 Sharp Cut)</a>

 

<p>

Are they good or should they be avided? I am concerned putting

them on L lenses.

[dan flanders]

From the theoretical standpoint a filter will degrade the image to a lesser or greater extent depending on the quality of the filter. That said, the extent to which the filter will affect the quality of the image is hardly significant when all the other image degrading factors are considered. For practical purposes I keep a UV or skylignt filter on all my lenses considering them to be transparent lens caps. If convenient, I remove them before exposures, but if I shoot in a hurry I have at least not lost the picture if I leave them on. I am aware of all the arguements for the use of lens caps. I use them for storage when the lens is not on the camera. Keeping them on the lens is inviting the loss of the shot which you make in a hurry and forget to remove the cap. In my most arrogant opinion the single lens reflex was probably invented by someone who consistently neglected to remove the lens cap in the frenzy of the action.

[peter_n1664876959]

What Jeff Lu said: B+W MRC FPRO UV filters. The most expensive, but the best. Get them at B&H Photo.

[bokeh man1]

If you have to use one I would use a Nikon L-37c. A protective filter will noticeably degrade the image if bright light falls on it. Filters are far more prone to this problem than front lens element as the front elements are normally recessed. Best protection against bumps to the front element and flare is a dedicated lenshood. Best protection against flying objects like "roost" at motocross events is the cheapest UV filter possible as it will need to be replace regularly. By the way I have had a front element damage by an object that penetrated the protective filter.