mtb-rider Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Hello all, I'm a newbie to the SLR world. I've recently purchased an almost new Nikon D100 with two lenses. I good mate of mine suggested that I purchase UV filters for the lenses. The problem that I have is I'm not sure which brand is better than the next. I visited my local Ritz Camera store and they pulled out the $35 filters. Not knowing that the filters cost this much I wanted to check other places. I went into Best Buy and then had UV filters for $10. Is the saying "you get what you pay for" apply to UV filters? Thank you in advance for all your assistance. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Is the saying "you get what you pay for" apply to UV filters? Yes. My take on this is covered here: http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm This stirs up an argument that repeats itself a couple of times a month in this forum. Anyway, don't waste your money on cheap filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_tanner Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Agree on the above, except I think its worth it for protection, but I do pay more for a high quality filter. If your lenses are cheap, I might not bother. I have nicked a filter that showed up in every image that didn't affect my lens so I was glad to swap out a filter instead of a lens. Good price on filters here. http://2filter.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_ho2 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The price of a UV filter [Tiffen] is around $30 for a 72mm size filter. It will be a little less for smaller sizes. $10 is a little low. Nikon filters are more expensive. At $30 you won't notice too much difference from the more expensive brands. Mainly it's about protecting the front lens element from dirt and scratches. This would be far more costly than replacing a scratched filter. The price is what you feel comfortable with spending. It is after all glass. I [shudder] have seen many a colleague wipe the filter on whatever is handy [their shirt] to clean the filter in a hurry. Think of how folks abuse their eyeglasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 "Think of how folks abuse their eyeglasses." People who clean their eyeglasses with their shirt will quickly not be able to see the scratches on their lenses. That can keep them happy while cleaning their lenses with their shirt. :-P But to come back to the question. There is a difference in the hardness of coatings on lenses and on filters. Better filters usually have better coating not only in optical aspects but also in resistance to accumulate dirt and sensitivity to scratching. Many people do not use filters as a "general precaution" , only in harsh environments like on a windy beach. BTW: Using a filter for lens protection and not using a lens hood is a bit of a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I use B+W filters on my lenses. However, I do not use UV filters. I use KR 1.5 filters or Skylight or slight warming filters like a 81A. Use the Search function adn you will see many posts on this question. Joe Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Just one more comment following Joseph's suggestion. I also prefer B+W filters and it does make sense to use an expensive filter on a cheap lens. If "cheap" does not say crap - if you talk about a say 50mm AFD f1.8 100US$ lens it makes sense to use an excellent filter on such a cheap but excellent lens even if you increase the value of your lens by 50% ^^. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Anthony, you're too conservative when you say "This stirs up an argument that repeats itself a couple of times a month in this forum." It stirs up an argument that repeats itself at lest a couple of times a month on practically _every_ forum, or at least it seems that way. Every camera forum on the internet has this pop up from time to time, usually with much flames and smoke. Just off the top of my head: (1) argument on whether flaws close to the lens affect quality all that much (B) argument on use no lens protection, save your money and buy better lenses III. argument on cheap lens vs expensive filter iv. argument on protecting lens from collision, scratches, ... and many, many more. It would be nice if more people would read the plea to search the site for prior discussions before posting. Now if I had to recommend a UV filter to anyone, this is a wonderful filter that fully lives up to its name (see photo of the Actina Super-Scru).<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now