Which Filter?

[leonachi]

<p>I have inherited a few filters. I am wanting to keep them on as lens protectors. I have the following filters:<br>

Tiffen SKY 1-A<br>

Tiffen Polarizer<br>

Tiffen Digital Ultra Clear WW<br>

I use a Canon Digital XS body and have the following lenses - all Canons: 50mm 1.8 II, 100mm macro, 70-210 zoom, 17-40L. The three filters are all 58mm and fit the 100mm and 70-210mm. I hear conflicting advice regarding adding a filter on an expensive lens. One person says it protects your investment, while another suggests the filter may impair the quality of an expensive lens.<br>

I have the following questions.<br>

Can/should I use the polarizer filter as a lens protector, or should I stick with the other two?<br>

Is any one filter more suitable for a particular lens?<br>

If I was to purchase a lens protector for the 17-40L, is there one type of filter I should consider more than another?<br>

Thanks<br>

Leon</p>

 

[vlad po...]

<p><strong>Just my 2 cents)))</strong><br>

Yes, I agree with the person who says that you need protection, especially for 100mm and "L" series. <br />BTW, another person also said you a valid thing: it's high chances the POOR QUALITY filter may easily impair the quality of an expensive lens.<br>

From what you listed above I may guess they are all cheap uncoated glass filters. Don't see any reason in using SKY, it's a warming filter and will change overall white balance. The other two can be used. If you don't care about reducing UV/haze, than use Ultra Clear as a protector for 7-210 zoom. 100mm macro seems a better quality lens, so I'd suggest using multicoated protector, for example 58mm Hoya HMC UV/Haze ($22, Adorama).<br>

Specifically, answering your questions<br />1) You didn't provide all the details, but I assume, you've got Circular Polarizer (not Linear), right? <br />You CAN use it as a protector, but, probably, shouldn't. Please, consider next things a) ANY additional <br />glass layer in front of your lens blocks some light, reduce sharpness, may introduce flair, especially <br />uncoated glass; polarizer has 2 layers of glass; b) polarizer slows down your camera up to 2 stops. So, qualitywise, unless you are shooting sports or some fast changing events where time is money, it would be good not stucking filters, but to replace protector for CPL only when you are planning to darken sky, reduce reflections, etc.<br>

2)I have Nikon DSLR, probably other Canoners))) will be better reference as for specific recommendations for Canon DSLR filters. But as a rule of the thumb, the better lens requires the better quality filter. And the quality filters work good on most lenses. If you buy Hoya HMS or higher grade, e.g. HD, you can't be wrong.<br>

3)If you are on budget, one of the best options would be Hoya HMC UV; 77mm version is $49 at Adorama, but if you don't mind to spend more, HD version costs $110. It's probably worth it, since it's a pain to clean fingerprints from HMC (and, probably from most multicoated filters?), but they say HD is resistant to dirt and cleans easily.<br />You can look at the results of filter testing published on one Polish website I discovered recently by chance (link below). Unfortunately, I don't know Polish,but the charts, test images, ratings and prices are more or less clear and don't require translation. According to all these data, Hoya HMC, HMS-Super, and Digital Pro are three top brands (price also considered as an identifier, secondary to light transmission and image quality). So, you can decide.<br>

A disclamer: I have nothing to do with Hoya, Canon, Nikon and other big players, my suggestions based on common sense and some experience:))) BTW, I have 52mm HMC Super UV/Haze and very happy with it, under normal conditions I don't see any difference when shoot with UV protector or without.<br />Good luck.<br>

<a href="http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_po">http://www.optyczne.pl/5.4-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV_Omówienie_wyników_i_po</a></p>

[Ken Katz]

<p>A filter on the 17-40 completes the weather seal for that lense, and I argree with the recommendation for a Hoya UV multicoated filter as an economical choise. With the 50mm lens, the front element is so recessed from the front of the lens that a protective filter is really not needed. Multicoated filters for the 58mm sized lenses are cheap and if it reduces any anxiety you may have in getting the most use out of that equipment, then by all means put protective filters on them.</p>

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>Personally, I'd only use a filter when you need to. If you use lens hoods (and you should), they'll cover the main job of protecting the lens. Use filters when you expect your shooting location to have "projectiles" like dirt or mud or if there are a lot of "corners" like tables or rocks to run into. If I was in a studio, doing landscape work on a tripod, or shooting in low light, I'd leave it off and use hood only.</p>

<p>Good multicoated filters won't affect your image except for one important thing: flare. It is an extra piece of glass after all. So just keep in mind that limitation and you'll be fine.</p>

<p>If I were to leave a filter on 24/7, it wouldn't be a polarizer. These cut your light significantly (anywhere from 1/2 - 2 stops), make it harder to check focus with the viewfinder and can create unnatural dark areas in a daytime sky on your wide angle lenses. UV or clear glass is better for physical protection. Also, if the filter breaks in the line of duty, a good polarizer is much more expensive to replace than a good protective filter, at about 2-3 times the cost.</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 is designed such that it doesn't really need protection, or a hood even. Only $100 and no accessories needed. Cheap is really cheap, isn't it!</p>

[leonachi]

<p>many thanks for the responses everyone</p>