What filter

do i need a filter on my camera lens,some people say yes deffo a uv filter other people say no whats your opinions,also if its a yes what brand you recomend its for a sigma 28-200 thanks

Widely and wildly divergent opinions on this one. Do a forum search for "knee" and check out that thread.

Cheers, Kris.

A UV or skylight filter was a natural thing to put on all your lenses when shooting film. It would help with the slight blueish cast that shooting outdoors would bring on film.

This is unnecessary on digital, so the only reason you would use one would be for protection.

The digital sensor is more susceptible to stray scattered light than film, so many reccomend not using a filter as it just adds an extra piece of glass into the light path. This is also a reason why the hood is very important (and adds some protection to boot).

I dont use filters for protection , unless I suppose I was snapping on a windswept beach !

ps. I have never damaged the front of a lens element in 30 years.

ok great i have a hood already but think i will go for a filter just for the protection aspect

What size filter does it require ?

I don't tend to use filters for protection but if I did I'd stick with the high quality ones: Pentax (hard to find), B+W (very expensive) and Hoya (just about right).

If you put a cheap filter in front of your lens you'll degrade image quality - almost like permanently shooting through a window.

Pentax filters come up every so often on ebay and I have managed to pick up a number of useful ones from there.

I have Pentax filters, almost all SMC, for all my Pentax SMC lenses. UVs are intended to cut haze which is useful outdoors with long lenses.

The only time I ever damaged a lens was when the lens fell about 8 inches onto a carpeted floor. The filter broke and damaged the front element. No protection filter and there would have been no damage.

I use them for protection from salt water spray and sand etc. not for protection against impact. When you think about it, the front element is a much thicker and stronger piece of glass than a wafer thin filter.

how about a sigma filter will this be ok?

I'm sure it will be, my only experience is with Pentax and Hoya. I'm selling a lens just now to finance a 67mm Hoya Polariser!

Carl, I did have a UV filter on that lens just for protection and it was an expensive one.
Like I said, it's cheaper to buy another filter than to buy a new lens if you do drop it.

Paul

ps glad you received it ok

Edit: spelling mistake

ok thansk fort he info peeps

ok going for this seen it cheaper elsewhere this is just for example

link

Interesting post. I generally don't use filters unless for a specific reason, and protection isn't one of them. I can't believe how a flimsy piece of glass on the front of your lens will give any protection what so ever if you drop it. All those tiny shards and splinters smashing against the element will do just as much damage, whether you have one on or not, IMO

Although I don't have first hand experience either.

Clarky

Maybe it's a habit that I am reluctant to let go of. From the age of 12, when my dad bought me my first camera, a Praktica MTL50, I have always popped a UV filter on the front of my lenses.
Now I'm in my 30 somethings I still do that.
I take so much care of my equipment that I will do anything to protect it, even if it's only a "flimsy" piece of glass. I have a top level insurance who will replace anything straight away, but it's the hassle.
I will continue to protect my lenses in my old fashioned way but I do understand if people think it's a little OTT, but that's me really

Paul