Jump to content

UV Filters


mtb-rider

Recommended Posts

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

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

"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

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

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>00LwYO-37561784.JPG.82de27c3127d2c3bc0b49a46e5fb3ae9.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...