UV filters

Hi everyone.

I've to buy an UV filter to protect the Sigma 17-70mm.

Even if the cost is not that high, can you recommend one type to me, please?

7days

dealextreme

kaidomain

Cheers

Hi Max
From my experiences I would suggest to get a good quality filter as it would not decrease the image quality as mentioned here
I am using Hoya Pro digital on two lenses with no problem.

Max - I'd go for the Hoya Pro because of it's narrow profile. At 17mm, there is a chance a "standard" filter will cause vignetting - especially if combined with other screw on filters. They are quite a lot more expensive though.

There has also been a debate on the forum in recent times about whether UV/Skylight filters should be used - it boils down to personal choice as the hood that comes with the lens should also provide protection from acidental damage.

I'm in the UV/Skylight filter user camp - old habits die hard as most of my lenses didn't come with a hood.


Steve

You know what you get when asking things about UV filters right

I myself use only B+W filters, they don't get stuck like most others and the glass is one of the best you can find.

I used to use UV filters but I don't buy them anymore, I always use an hood and the coating on the lens is extremely tough. It's easier to break the filter then to damage the glass although there are some situation where I can see you want to use a filter.

Why not buy a polarizer, that filter is atleast usefull when it is on the lens. It removes the haze so that colours are much more vibrant, the sky is a deeper blue and plants become greener and of course you can controll reflections. Yes they cost double the price but they are worth it I believe.

The filters you showed... I've so my doubt with them.
You have an expensive lens and you will probable downgrade the image quality with those filters. I don't know them but most cheap filters don't do so well but you might be lucky.

Thank you guys, I understood the filters I talked about are too cheap and so low quality.

I knew UV and skilight as a protection, but as I like deeper blue and greener plants, also polarizers are worth considering.

As my knowledge is low, I can't decide.
on Amazon for example HAze UV £18,90 , while Polarizinf £30 and 32 all on sale.

Help me please!

I'm using Hoya HD UV filters for my 16-50mm and 60-250mm, HD series belong to the top line of Hoya. They are made of specially strong glass and the optical quality is good as well. Alternatively, you can choose UV filters from B+W, some people say they are the best. I use the B+W MRC UV filter for my Nokton 58mm.

Last week ordered 52mm and 77mm Hoya pro digital 1 for DA 50-200 mm and DA 12-24mm.Arrived next day ,perfect and no image deterioration.

I was thinking to buy a Hoya 72mm Haze UV Filter (probably non pro1) to be kept on the lens, and a polarizer to use sometimes for landscapes.

Can I use them together or do I risk a degree of vignetting?

To aovid that, do you think is better to get a larger polarizer filter +adaptor or a thinner polarizer filter (the Pro1)?

Stacking filters is never a good idea to begin with, the lens company are very glad when they can drop one lens element in the lens design since quality and the lost of light becomes better. Whit every filter you put on you will reduce quality.

I don't have the lens but stacking them might very well not give any vignetting, the filter size is quite large for such a lens you see so you dont need to worry much. Maybe if you use the lens wide open on the wide end it might be a problem but not when srtopped down or used on the long end. Once again I don't have the lens so dont take my word for it.

I have stopped using filters as protection - mine are uncoated Hoya and cause problems with unwanted secondary refractions (i.e. secondary images of bright objects, like the setting sun, sunlight off glass, etc.).

I guess the answer is to buy coated (i.e. 'Pro') filters.

(Update - from the later posts in this thread, I now know that the effect is called 'filter flare'.)

Forget filters for protection, always wear a hood. And I mean that in a photographic sense.

This point has been argued to death before. My argument is, why spend several hundreds of pounds on a quality lens, then screw a £20 piece of optically inferior glass on the front that is going to do nothing except reduce IQ, if only ever so slightly.

Do you not think that if the lens needed more protection, the manufacturers would include it?

In Pentax's case they do, it's called Super Multi-Coating.

Going a bit of a site-track now but do someone has a link about how effective those coatings are against scratches?

Coatings are effective at reducing flare, but may well be softer than the glass itself.

Lenses should be cleaned only when necessary and then very carefully.

Here is a good read about filters and I believe most will agree link

Here is someone who hates Canon so he's trying to break a lens link
Only with the end of the hammer he created some damage on the lens.

What John said is also true though but I believed many have an anti-scratch coating now. Will send Pentax a message about that and see what they will say.

It's a pity the video maker (lens basher?) hadn't got all the tools of his trade to hand - that poor lens must have been shuddering in horror as it heard drawers being opened and searched.

By the way, that's not the recommended way to clean a Pentax lens!

Still, I wonder if it was on ebay later that day? "Mint, one careful owner."