DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> UV filters for Canon lenses
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 16 of 16, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/22/2005 08:05:44 PM · #1
Hey everyone,

I'm about the make a big purchase at B&H and buydig and would like to purchase UV filters right off for the lenses. Which UV filters would you all recommend more?

Lenses:

Canon 70-200 IS
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8

Any brands more recommended?

Thanks for the help
[/url]
03/22/2005 08:15:48 PM · #2
I'd buy ONE high-quality UV filter, for use in adverse environments. Look at B+W, certainly among the best going. The reason I recommend one only is this: under normal shooting circumstances, I don't use a UV filter, I always shoot with a hood. In situations where protection from dirt/dust is more important, a UV is good protection, so you keep one in the bag and put it on when needed. Both the 70-200 and 24-70 take the same 77mm size (as do many L lenses).
I certainly wouldn't invest in one for the 50/1.8, since the filter could cost almost as much as the lens, LOL.
03/22/2005 08:17:53 PM · #3
Good point on the 50mm. Thanks!!

Any thoughts on 'other' filters i should get? Polarized?
[/url]
03/22/2005 08:28:25 PM · #4
Definitely a circular polarizer. Again, B+W is great stuff, you don't need the "kaesmann" sealed filter unless you are going to be shooting in very adverse weather.
Neutral density filter(s) would be a good investment as well, if you want to shoot slow shutter speeds in bright daylight, e.g. for moving water). You'll need at least a 3-stop, add a 5-stop for more flexibility.
03/22/2005 08:45:34 PM · #5
Kirbic's advice is good (as always). With these lenses, it wouldn't make sense to use cheap filters. B+W as well as Heliopan are brands I recommend. The polarizers made by either co. are actually tight mechanically.

Do not buy the slim versions, unless you don't mind going capless. The caps for the slim filters are no good. They fall off.
03/30/2005 02:04:55 AM · #6
I can't find it now, but I remember an article from Popular Phtography that claims that they couldn't see any difference on pictures between cheap and more expensive filters. Hence they were recommending that you get the cheapest filter you can find for your need.
I've always used cheap but brand named UV filters on my lens for protection but am now thinking about going "naked" but with a lens hood. I wonder if there are some really good comparison photos with and without a filter under same situations.
03/30/2005 02:11:03 AM · #7
double post...

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 02:15:39.
03/30/2005 02:11:42 AM · #8
One diff between cheap and good filters is coatings - the cheap filters won't have one, the good ones will - particularly the anti-glare coating.

I favor Cokin filters as it is very inexpensive - you can buy one of each filter and use them on all your lenses for $10/size for the filter adapters.
03/30/2005 02:21:31 AM · #9
Originally posted by yido:

I can't find it now, but I remember an article from Popular Phtography that claims that they couldn't see any difference on pictures between cheap and more expensive filters. Hence they were recommending that you get the cheapest filter you can find for your need.


The article was flawed. Under the best of circumstances there will be no noticable difference, but we rarely shoot under the best of conditions. You're spending a few thousand dollars on a lens of which a significant portion of that price is lens coatings to reduce aberations and flare and you would consider skimping on the price of a $60 coated filter to use a cheap one that can possibly negate all the qualities of the best of lenses.

You would be better off going without a filter then using a cheap one as far as image quality goes. Right up until that little 3 year old brat sticks his bubble gum fingers all over the front element.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 02:22:44.
03/30/2005 03:32:58 AM · #10
Originally posted by nsbca7:

You would be better off going without a filter then using a cheap one as far as image quality goes. Right up until that little 3 year old brat sticks his bubble gum fingers all over the front element.


Or the dog you're trying to get a shot of licks the camera...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/22011/thumb/161352.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/22011/thumb/161352.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Took about 20 minutes to get all the goobers off the filter, he licked the lens just after I took this shot. :-).

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 03:33:11.
03/30/2005 04:29:46 AM · #11
I had an $800 lens that the lens cap came off of in the case while I was riding a 4 wheeler up through the swamp. No filter. Replacing the front element cost me $225. The filter would have been a lot cheaper. That was years ago and now most of my lenses keep a multi-coated U/V Haze filter firmly in place at all times.
03/30/2005 04:37:18 AM · #12
I keep UV filters on the front of all my lenses (except my 50mm 1.8) for protection. If I'm taking a set pic where I need the best quality possible then I take off the filter and replace it afterwards.

There again I'm a Nikon user so what would I know ;)
03/30/2005 05:08:29 AM · #13
I agree with Colda. I also keep my leses protected at all time with UV filters. I use B&W filters, the MRC multi coated versions. Top quality stuff.
03/30/2005 05:27:18 AM · #14
'Urro

After a nasty repair bill in my early SLR days with the OM10 I always have a UV filter on if practical. The only acception was my old 9mm fisheye. I sold that because I was too nervous to take it out in public in case a fly landed on the front element!

The couple of times I shot jet-sprints I even put two UV's on the front of my pride and joy, a Zuiko 180 F/2. I had a 'press pass' and I was ducking behind a hoarding after the boats went past to avoid the gravel spray... :-).

Hoya HMC used to be my filter of choice, but the latest ones I've bought are Sigma EX multi-coated jobs, which are highly rated, although I've not tried them yet as the lenses havn't arrived.. (Mutter mumble) The local Hoya importer no longer brings in HMC's as they were priced off the local market apparently, although I would have happily paid for them, they weren't shipping enough to justify carrying them in stock.

Standard Hoya's are fine for mid-telephoto stuff, but do introduce a little flare/haze. At wide angles the tend to soften the edges of your images quite a bit. Still, they're cheap... Hoya HMC filters are great, but cost a tad more.

I've got one Kenko skylight I keep on the 50 F/1.8 and It seems to have very 'soft' coatings, as it's picked up a few light spiral scratches, and the only thing that I clean my filters with is a clean microfire cloth, which is kept in a wee plastic bag, or my fingers accientally. (Oh, and the dogs tounge, as above) None of my HMC's have picked up any scratches, and a couple of them are well over 5 years old.

Just my 2c worth, as always.

ed: Typo

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 05:31:21.
03/30/2005 07:10:41 AM · #15
I have just had a similar discussion on another site.
I just bought the 17-85 and 50 1.8 lens from B & H. i got the Tiffen UV filter for the 17-85. I think it cost $14.
Anyway someone pointed me towards This article
The next night I was out taking photos for the Cemetary challenge at night, and on my last shot I noticed some bad flair in the LCD, so I took the filter off, & took the last shot again without it. The flair was gone. It could be because the UV filter is pretty cheap, but it certainly messed up a number of shots.
I have chosen now to try to select the situations when a UV filter will be necessary. E.g. dirty / wet or dusty environments. When photographing towards the sun, moon or lights, then remove it.
03/30/2005 07:22:40 AM · #16
Originally posted by aKiwi:

I have just had a similar discussion on another site.
I just bought the 17-85 and 50 1.8 lens from B & H. i got the Tiffen UV filter for the 17-85. I think it cost $14.
Anyway someone pointed me towards This article
The next night I was out taking photos for the Cemetary challenge at night, and on my last shot I noticed some bad flair in the LCD, so I took the filter off, & took the last shot again without it. The flair was gone. It could be because the UV filter is pretty cheap, but it certainly messed up a number of shots.
I have chosen now to try to select the situations when a UV filter will be necessary. E.g. dirty / wet or dusty environments. When photographing towards the sun, moon or lights, then remove it.


Or you could just buy a multi-coated filter and avoid the whole problem. You have a $600 lens and a $1000 camera and you can't allow more then $14 for a filter? A 67mm Hoya multi-coated filter is only $16 more.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 07:23:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 07:23:01 AM EST.