Best Wide Angle UV Filter with FRONT threads?

[rob_h5]

<p>Does anyone here know of a professional wide angle (WA) UV filter with <strong>FRONT THREADS</strong> for Canon or 3rd part zooms?</p>

<p>The UV filter I am using is a professional <strong>Angenieux UV wide angle filter</strong>. It works great and does a superb job of what its supposed to be doing by reducing lens flare and vignetting of wide angle focal lengths on my Angenieux 35-70mm (and Canon zooms) on Canon full frame digital. However using a normal size filter there is vignetting at 35mm focal length. I have only found a handful (maybe there are more) of professional UV filters for wide angle use with <strong>front threads:</strong></p>

<p><strong>Tiffen 58mm 812 Warming Digital HT </strong><br /> <strong>Rodenstock 58mm UV Blocking Digital pro MC Slim Filter</strong><br /> <strong>Zeiss 58mm Carl Zeiss T* UV Filter</strong><br /> <strong>Hoya 58mm HD2 UV Filter</strong></p>

<p>Anyone use any of these filters on wide angle zooms (Canon or third party zooms)?<br /> Price range is up to $100 (the Angenieux UV filter runs about $175)</p>

<p>I am interested in the Hoya HD2 UV filter, it si only (1.0 mm) thick. My Angenieux UV filter looks about 2-3.0 mm thick.</p>

<p>Basically I just want to be able to stack one filter on the zoom <strong>without taking off the WA UV filter</strong>.</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Angenieux filter</p><div></div>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>The best wide angle UV filter with front threads?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No filter at all<strong>.</strong> The necessarily short lens hood on a wide angle lens provides little enough protection against extraneous light. A filter sticking out from the front of wide angle lenses will catch light and produce flare. Stacking filters makes things worse.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you really must, or if you want to find the filters most resistant to flare for use with longer lenses, Bob Atkins (long a moderator here) had an excellent article <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/filters.html"><strong> on his web site</strong></a> that you may find useful.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I use (and like) Hoya Pro-1 filters. They're a bit thinner than most, and they boast the best optical properties. That said, they test out about the same as Hoya's HMC (Hoya Multi-Coat) line. Both have front threads, or else the lens caps would have nothing to grab. (It would be a rare filter that wouldn't have front threading.</p>

<p>I have to say, though, that stacking filters is just asking for trouble. If you have enough filters on a 35mm lens to create vignetting, you probably have too many. Most lenses are designed to accommodate one filter without any vignetting at all. Unlike many, I usually do use protective filters, and I have a nice story about how one saved an expensive lens of mine from being etched by volcanic ash. (I didn't see THAT coming!) But the protective filter comes off before a different filter (e.g. polarizer) goes on.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Oops... duplicate...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Your desires for front threads <em>and </em>wide angle coverage <em>that doesn't produce vignetting </em>are at odds with one another. The (or "A") problem with adding filters to ultra wide lenses is that they can extend far enough forward to interfere with the light path at the corners of the frame and create vignetting. This is why many people who feel the need to use filter with them use ultra-thin filters, typically without front threads, as putting two sets of threads on the filter necessarily increases the thickness of the filter. Others instead mount separate square filters in front of the lens - large enough filter surfaces can give coverage and avoid vignetting.<br>

<br>

I'm trying to get my mind around the question of <em>why </em>you would want to front mount <em>another</em> filter to your UV filter, especially on an ultra wide lens. Or are you just doing this so that you can clip a lens cap to the threads. If the former, it would be far better to <em>remove the UV filter </em>when you need to use a different filter. Placing two extra layers of glass in front of your lens is something you normally want to avoid, for a range of reasons I won't recite here. If this is so that you can add a lens cap... using a lens cap (plus a hood) virtually negates the (questionable) value of the UV "protection" filter - so, again, if you use a cap you hardly need a filter on the lens all the time.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It works great and does a superb job of what its supposed to be doing by reducing lens flare and vignetting of wide angle focal lengths on my Angenieux 35-70mm (and Canon zooms) on Canon full frame digital."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A filter is not going to "reduce lens flare." If anything, adding a filter <em>increases the chances of reflections between the lens and the filter's surface </em>and has an almost opposite effect. I do not see how a filter will reduce vignetting either, unless this is some odd filter that I have not seen before that is darker in the center and clear around the edges. A clear filter will either be neutral with respect to vignetting (i.e. - no improvement) or its edges might block some corner light (i.e. - make vignetting worse). </p>

<p>When it comes to what filters to get, don't over-think this. There are a number of brands that make fine filters in a variety of thicknesses and designs. Any of them that provide the type of filtering you are looking for will be fine. </p>

<p>A filter is just a filter.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ljwest]

<p>What Dan said.</p>

<p>When you need another filter, like a circular polarizer, simply remove the "UV" filter from the lens first. A "wide angle" filter necessarily has to be short so that the light can enter about the edges. Making it long enough to accommodate threads would allow for vignetting, and adding another filter would create even more vignetting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However using a normal size filter there is vignetting at 35mm focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if you added even another "wide angle" filter on top of a "wide angle" filter, you'd be in the same boat.</p>

<p>I fall on the no-filter side of the argument over whether or not a filter should be fitted to a lens for "protection". Back in my film days, almost all my lenses had a UV, or usually, a "skylight" filter on them, partly for "protection", but mostly for their haze-reducing effects, which are not needed with digital sensors.</p>

<p>I've been using a Canon 100-400 L zoom for almost three years, without a UV filter, but <em>always</em> with the lens hood, and haven't managed to ding it up yet. Besides, a 2-ounce filter is no match for a three-pound lens falling on it...</p>

 

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>And if you added even another "wide angle" filter on top of a "wide angle" filter, you'd be in the same boat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just want to stack one or two filters <strong>WITHOUT </strong>removing the UV WA filter at the 50mm and 75mm <strong>tele focal lengths </strong>or more with other zooms.<br /> The Angenieux UV WA filter is a SLIM (APX 3.0mm width) fine filter and is designed to <em>reduce </em>flare and vignetting. But the problem is it does NOT have front threads. I cant stack even one filter at the tele-photo lengths. Most professional WA filters are between 5mm and 1 mm thickness. Here is what Hoya says about their WA thin filter (1mm) thickness:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hoya HD2 UV filters are multi-coated for <strong>reducing flare</strong>, <strong>ghosting</strong>, and <strong>reflections</strong> on the filter surface.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Hoya also will work well at the 35mm focal length without vignette and I can stack filters at tele focal lengths.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Rob, to be clear, the filter's purpose is not to reduce ghosting, flare, and reflections. That's the purpose of the coatings on the filter -- to ameliorate these problems that otherwise would occur with an uncoated filter. The UV filter itself (aside from its antireflective coatings) simply cuts UV light, if it's a good one. There are no filters capable of reducing ghosting or flare. A polarizer can reduce reflections off of objects your photographing (but not the "internal" reflections the Hoya quote refers to), depending on how it's used. A sunshade obviously can reduce flare, depending on how it's used.</p>

<p>I believe one big difference between "slim" filters and ordinary filters is that there are fewer turns on the threading, so the ring has a slimmer profile. If you want a relatively slim UV with threading on the front, a Pro-1 would be a good choice.</p>

<p>Just curious: What filters do you want to stack? The ONLY filters you might need for digital photography are polarizers and, to a much lesser extent, NDs. A UV filter is unnecessary on most modern digitals, and everything else can be replicated with much higher quality in post. Unlike in the film days, there's no need to stack a polarizer + grad ND + star filter, or other such nonsense.</p>

<p>EDIT: One more note: If you really feel strongly that you need to stack several filters on your lens, the way to do it is the same way we did it back in the day: Use a step-up ring to graduate to a larger filter diameter (e.g. 72mm). Then you can stack a few filters before the rings intrude into the optical path. The step-up rings are cheap (ebay). The filters will be a bit more costly. One advantage to this approach is that you can use the same (relatively expensive) filters on multiple lenses of different filter threading with different (relatively inexpensive) step-up rings. Also remember to buy a few lens caps for the larger filter size.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>without taking off the WA UV filter</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a "contradiction" - stacking on top of a wide angle lens is inadvisable on principle, and-as said- most <strong>thin</strong> front filters won't have threads on top.<br /> Your best solution is to remove the UV filter when you need to add another filter. You can temporarily stow it in the case/holder that you take the additional filter out of.</p>

<p>Otherwise, Sarah has it nicely summed up.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Rob, to be clear, the filter's purpose is not to reduce ghosting, flare, and reflections. That's the purpose of the coatings on the filter -- to ameliorate these problems that otherwise would occur with an uncoated filter.]]</p>

<p>Indeed. Rob H has read the description of the product <em>as it compares to others and/or previous versions of the same product</em> and taken it to mean it is the function of the product itself, which is wrong. Adding filters will never reduce ghosting, flare, and internal reflections. The coating is there to help cause less of the ghosting, flare, and reflections cause by the filter in the first place.</p>

<p>Rob H: As you appear to be using UV filters because of a misunderstanding of what they do, I would recommend either stop using them or to simply remove them when you want to use other filters.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Use bigger filters and a step up ring if you must stack filters on a WA lens.</p>

<p>However there is very, very, very rarely a need to stack filters, and I can't think of <em>any</em> valid optical reason to stack a UV filter and a polarizer</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I agree with the advice about stacking. Just want to add a detail: while most of my filters are Hoya, I have recently been buying Marumis, which test very well and are a bit cheaper. All of the Marumis I have are thin. And all of the filters I have ever owned, of any brand, have had front threads.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"...is designed to <em>reduce </em>flare and vignetting"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you explain how a filter could reduce flare and vignetting? That does not compute.</p>

<p>Regarding flare, I'll bet that what they are saying - though perhaps in a very unclear and confusing way - is that they coat their filters so that they will produce less flare than uncoated filters... and <em>not that the filters will reduce flare overall.</em></p>

<p>As to reducing vignetting... I cannot think of a way in which a normal filter could possibly do that. Maybe they are again being unclear and confusing and rather than actually telling you that adding their filter will make your lens vignette less that <em>their filter adds less vignetting than some others that are thicker.</em><br>

<br /> <br /> Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>For me the main reason for front threads on a filter is so the regular lens cap can fit on, not to stack filters. In my experience with canon lens, a regular thickness filter (with front threads) has been ok, no vignette. I've got a mix of Hoya and B+W.</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Regarding flare</em>, ... that they coat their filters so that they will produce less flare than uncoated filters... and <em>not that the filters will reduce flare overall.</em></strong><br>

<strong>As to <em>reducing vignetting</em>... make your lens vignette less that <em>their filter adds less vignetting than some others that are thicker.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan! Thank you so much for typing this, to be clear here (no pun intended!) :D ... this is exactly what I meant.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>OK back to topic...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just want to stack one or two filters <strong>WITHOUT </strong>removing the UV WA filter at the 50mm and 75mm <strong>tele focal lengths...</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Folks I do NOT want to stack ANY filters at the wide angle focal length</strong> on a zoom lens "lets say at 35mm". What I do want to do is stack one or two filters (mostly ND filters) at 50mm and above WITHOUT having to remove my UV WA filter with no front threads everytime (this is a hassle and I have been doing it this way for a long time). This means the UV filter needs to be slim and have front threads. <strong>Which brand of UV wide angle filters with front threads is best? </strong>That's all I was asking.<strong><br /></strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have recently been buying Marumis, which test very well and are a bit cheaper. All of the Marumis I have are thin...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Dan M please tell me more about the <strong>Marumi filter </strong>I have not heard of this filter. So they make UV WA filters that are thin AND with front theads? This is kind of answer to my question I was looking for. My favorite brand FILTERS that I use all the time <strong>Angenieux, Tiffen</strong> and <strong>B+W filters </strong>do not make a thin UV filter with front threads for wide angle lenses. Anyone else recommend another brand filter?... Hoya,Rodenstock , Zeiss...ect?</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Here you go, Rob H... Here's the best review I know of UV filters. Note: the page loads a bit slowly, so wait for it...</p>

<p>http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html</p>

<p>There are many pages, describing testing procedures and showing data and sample images for each lens. Not all makes are analyzed. You'll find nothing for Angenieux, but Tiffen is there (a truly abysmal performer that ranks dead last), as are the various different lines of B+W (there are different grades, some good, and some not so good). You'll also find Marumi and a few others.</p>

<p>Anyway, if you like Tiffin, you won't be disappointed with any other name-brand filter. Pick any of them, as you don't need a slim-profile filter for normal and telephoto lenses to stack maybe a couple of filters. If you want to stack 3 or 4 filters, go with a larger diameter of filter. Easy.</p>

<p>Finally, I think what we've all been trying to tell you (even those of us who don't think excellent quality filters are evil) is that it is a mistake to stack filters REGARDLESS of focal length. It's more of a mistake for wide angle (vignetting issue), but it's also a mistake for normal or telephoto lengths.</p>

<p>Oh, and this article also came to mind for obvious reasons...</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters</p>

<p>Take note of the sample images comparing no filter, 5 stacked high-quality UV filters, and 5 stacked low-quality UV filters. You'll see there's a tiny price to pay for each filter, no matter how good. There's of course a much heavier price to pay for a bad filter.</p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>Tiffen 58mm 812 Warming Digital HT <br />Rodenstock 58mm UV Blocking Digital pro MC Slim Filter<br />Zeiss 58mm Carl Zeiss T* UV Filter<br />Hoya 58mm HD2 UV Filter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Sarah! :D great info from the websites on the UV filters. However there is no mention of any of the above UV thin filters with <strong>front threads</strong> that I mentioned in my first post (not only Angenieux UV filters). And no one is familiar in this thread with these particular filters<strong> (understandable since they are new, expensive and specialty use!)</strong>. These filters all have great reviews on photo store websites though. Even the Tiffen brand above is a speciality filter, (it not UV but actually a warming filter) but its all Tiffen has thats a thin size filter <em>with front threads</em>. I noticed there is a Filter forum here at Photo.net (to my surprise!) so Ill try over there. Again I am only stacking one maybe two filters tops at normal and tele focal lengths. Ill keep everyone posted on what I find.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Like I said. Use a step up ring then you can put any thickness filter on the lens and stack as many extra filters on it as you want.</p>

<p>If your lens REQUIRES a thin filter (many properly designed WA lenses do not), then a thin filter with front threads is a bit of contradiction in terms. Thin filters are thin filters because they cut off the front threads. That's generally how they make them thin. If you have a thin filter with front threads and you cut iff the threads, you have a filter that's even thinner. Then it comes down to a definition of "thin" in this context. How thin is thin enough? And what's "standard" thickness anyway. Are some standard filters thinner than others? I presume they are. </p>

<p>And stacking a UV and a couple of ND filters is still a bad idea. You may be happy enough with it, but despite that, it's still something to be discouraged.</p>

<p>BTW if for some reason you actually want a UV filter that cuts UV then be careful which filter you choose - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/filters.html</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Honestly I haven't seen any filters without the front threads, although I certainly understand what you mean and know they exist. I'm just saying they're uncommon and in most cases unnecessary. I use a Pro-1 UV (slim, but with front threading) on my 17-44 (with FF camera) with no difficulties from vignetting. My next wider lens is a Sigma 12-24, but you can't put any sort of front filter on that lens, due to the bulging front element. Anyway, for the focal lengths you're talking about, I don't think you need a thin, or even slim, filter. Any filter should do. The Hoya HMC has a bit thicker ring than the Pro-1, but it should work fine, perform about as well as the Pro-1 optically, and cost quite a bit less. That would be my recommendation. Anyway, good luck with your search for the ideal filter.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sometimes you just need to move on... ;-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't understand the need for UV filters these days. Digital sensors are far less sensitive to UV light than film. What's the point?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the need for UV filters these days. Digital sensors are far less sensitive to UV light than film. What's the point?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean what's the point of a protective filter, or what's the point of it being specifically a UV filter? I think you've argued the utility of a protective filter before:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've been sprayed with blood, sweat, spit, beer, and cheap fizzy wine while shooting, does anyone really think there isn't much reason for me to put a filter on my lens for protection?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In my own experience, a UV filter saved a very expensive lens from having its front element badly etched by volcanic ash. Although the repair might have cost somewhat less than my small assemblage of UV filters, that doesn't negate the fact that I was able to toss the damaged filter and keep going with a squeaky clean lens and no down-time. </p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There is no need for UV filters in most circumstances. One can get a clear glass filter for protective purposes, which is what I use. I specifically pointed out that protection from UV is unnecessary. And to get back to the original post, if you have another filter on the lens, what purpose would a UV filter serve?</p>

[rob_h5]

<p><strong>Thickness sizes of wide angle filters with front threads</strong><br /> <br /> Tiffen 58mm 812 Warming Digital HT (USA)<br />Unknown filter thickness size<br /> <br />Rodenstock 58mm UV Blocking Digital pro MC Slim Filter (Germany)<br /><strong>filter glass of 1.4 mm</strong> <br /> <br /> Heliopan 58mm Protection Filter (Germany)<br />Unknown filter thickness size <br /><br />Zeiss 58mm Carl Zeiss T* UV Filter SC (<em>Japanese made not German</em>!)<br />Unknown filter thickness size<br /> <br />Hoya 58mm HD2 UV Filter MC (Japan)<br /><strong>filter glass of </strong><strong>1.0 mm</strong></p>

<p>B+W 58mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter (Germany)<br /><strong>filter glass of </strong><strong>3.0 mm</strong><br /> <br /> B+W 58mm Clear MRC 007M Extra Wide Filter (has 72mm front threads!) (Germany)<br />Unknown filter thickness size<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>*Angenieux UV MC Slim wide angle filter (France)<br /><strong>filter glass of 3.0 mm (no front threads)</strong><br /><br /> <br /> * All these filter above are "slim" filters which have front threads except the Angenieux<br /><br /> <br /> <br /> This is all the info I found on these UV wide angle filters with front threads. The two B+W wide angle filter are interesting. The B+W XS-Pro Digital mount is specifically designed for DSLR use with wide angle and zoom lenses. The B+W Clear MRC 007M Extra Wide Filter has 72mm <em><strong>front threads</strong></em>.</p>