Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Get on1's Perfect Effects 9.5 for FREE! (£48 value)

Is Canon 650D better with a Hoya UV filter? UV filter from Jessops or none at all?


CatLover Junior Member 2 11 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 12:12PM
Hi everybody!

Can anybody tell me if I should put a Hoya UV filter on my new Canon 650D camera?

My dad is going to buy me a this camera and I wanted to know if I should get a Jessops UV filter for 19.99 or a Hoya Japanese filter 58mm for 38.99 or if I should get any UV filters at all.

Some people say you should always have a UV filter to protect the expensive lenses, and some people say the photo will not turn out as good looking if you put a UV filter on.

What do you guys think? Should I get a cheap one from Jessops, a Hoya for 38.99 or should I not bother? Please tell me your experienced opinions!!

If anybody has got this same Canon and wants to share some info with me, please drop me a line! Im a beginner and this is my first DSLR!! Yayyy!! So happy!!

Thanks guys!

Angela the Cat Lover

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

f11digital 12 98 1 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 12:21PM
I wouldn't recommend putting a UV filter on your new DSLR - they are not needed nowadays and will also degrade the image as a result. As far as having one on there to protect the lens, I have yet to crack my glass on anything and utilise either my lens cap or lens hood (or both) for protection.

John
mikehit Plus
5 7.5k 11 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 12:27PM
If you are buying a quality filter like the Hoya Pro1 D I think you will be very hard pressed to tell the difference with or without the filter. I use one because I can be clumsy.

The objections to filters are usually theoretical: they can't improve the image so some prefer not to take the chance. The question is at what price do detrimental effects of filters become obvious? I use the Hoya Pro series and can see no drop in image quality - I suppose at 10 a cheap filter could almost be disposable and be worth trying out to compare images with/without the filter.
The reductionist argument is that if they did cause provable degradation, there would be no discussion on the matter.

Having said all that there are times I have had a filter cause internal reflections in extreme circumstances such as night time shooting with a light source at the edge of the frame.

Enjoy your camera - it is an excellent one!
arhb Plus
7 2.6k 68 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 12:35PM
Hi Angela,
unless you are very clumsy, and are prone to touching the lens glass with sticky/dirty fingers, dont bother with the UV filter.
As John(f11digital) states, always use the lens cap and hood, and your lens should be fine.
Maybe use the money to buy a lens cleaning set.
sherlob Plus
9 2.5k 126 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 12:38PM
I use UV filters for protection on all my lenses other than my 17-40mmL where stacking filters causes vignetting when I use square ND grads. I have never noted a drop in image quality on any of the lenses with filters applied (I have a couple which have jessops own UV filters) and I think Mike has a point about 'at what point is it noticeable'. In contrast the coating on my 17-40mm lens are most definitely showing signs of damage - not because I am clumsy (although I am Wink), but rather from repeated cleaning and wiping the front of the lens. e.g. to clear sea spray. Currently, this isn't a major issue although I suspect that it is contributing to a few issues with reflections when using square filters. I'd rather shell out another 50 on a replacement filter than the 500+ it will cost me to eventually replace the lens.

Stick a UV on the lens - it will give you peace of mind if nothing else. It will also potentially help you maximise any re-sale value on the lens.
mikehit Plus
5 7.5k 11 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 1:32PM
One comment worth making is that UV filters are not needed for digital cameras - they were invented in the film days and film is susceptible to UV light giving a 'haze' effect. Get a clear 'protective filter' as they are sometimes cheaper.
redsnappa 12 2.0k United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 2:03PM

Quote:they are not needed nowadays and will also degrade the image as a result

Does anyone know exactly how much image quality will be lost by using uv filters such as the Hoya pro 1d?
The Hoya pro 1d is perfectly fine (that's what I use). You need to have super duper eyes or be extremely fussy to see a difference between a photo taken without a filter and one without.

You need to protect your lens from dirt, sand, water ...etc... I have scratched filters in the past when cleaning them and when walking through brambles, forests ...etc... I would have been very upset/annoyed if I had damaged the front element of the lens.
mikehit Plus
5 7.5k 11 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 2:30PM
There is no hard information and if you google 'UV filter image degradation' you will find little to confirm either view.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B-W-UV-Filter.aspx

http://www.photopathway.com/using-uv-filters-for-protection-right-or-wrong/

However, here is one of the rare examples of someone putting their money where their mouth is and shows the effects of 'cheap' filters:
http://www.kenandchristine.com/Other/Equipment-Tests/Filter-Tests/1054387_ZLJFtM/1

I think it is worth buying one anyway: do your own tests, and if you think the image is affected keep the filter anyway as a reserve for those days you are shooting on the beach (abrasive effects of windblown sand and saltcan be murderous) or in wet conditions - I find it easier to wipe a flat filter surface than a surved lens surface (and as Sherlob says I would prefer to wipe a filter repeatedly than risk damaging a lens surface with frequent wiping).
CatLover Junior Member 2 11 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 6:48PM
WoW! You guys on here are really helpful and GREAT!! Thank you for all your advice. I am so glad I joined this website.

I make and sell costume earrings and wanted this camera to take photos of my earrings on a pure white background without using photoshop afterwards.

Making photos on a pure white background is harder than it looks. I had 2 photographers say they could do it and so far both have not been able to do it with their DSLR.

So as soon as I get my camera, Im going to try it out. This is going to be my first DSLR a Canon 650D with a 55mm lens. Finally! I have waited so long to get a DSLR and shoot in RAW.
My old bridge camera is a Panasonic Lumix FZ-18.

I have taken a 10 week (few hours a week only) photography course before, 3 years ago, but it did not cover all these buttons! There are a lot of buttons on this camera.

If there is anybody who would like have fun taking photos with me, please drop me an email. Im hoping to make new photography friends I can learn from and chill out with.
Age is irrelevant if you have got things in common. So doesn't matter if you are older or younger than me.
I like taking photos of buildings, portraits, animals and product photography (I make earrings). I have CS5 and still figuring out how to use it!

If you would like to make friends with a fun and crazy Canadian lady, then email me and tell me which part of London you are from!
Maybe we can start a SW photography friendship group?

Hugs from a tree hugging hippy Chic,
Angela
cctt 1 2
16 Jul 2013 9:10AM
The UV filter will make the best when apply in the right circumstance.
Such as mountain or seashore, in this way the filter will prevent the sea spray or mositure and prevent the strong ultraviolet light.
There's multi-coated UV filter that will provide better image sharpness to suit your lens. and the price is higher than normal types.
18 Jul 2013 5:40PM
Buying a UV filter new has been naive except for B&W film for around 30 years, because that is when colour film stopped being sensitive to UV, and your Canon DSLR is not sensitive to UV.
Flat filters can increase the risk of reflections off the sensor so I would not use any filter for indoor product photography.
If you want a filter for protection a clear filter is much better than UV. The clear Canon Protector is under 50 in 77mm size from SpeedGraphic.
CatLover Junior Member 2 11 United Kingdom
12 Aug 2013 6:09PM
THanks guys! I always appreciate advice from you pros. I hope to know more about all this as time goes buy.

Smile
13 Aug 2013 4:52PM
We are 13 years into the 21st century Smile
It was maybe even last century when Canon changed their advice to using UV only for black and white silver based film, and to use a clear Canon Protector if you want front element protection.
It was early this century when Nikon stopped making UV filters because digital cameras are not sensitive to UV, and colour film stopped being sensitive to UV over 25 years ago.
Your great granddad might have used a UV in strong UV light when B&W film was very sensitive to UV. Great grand-dad also kept the UV filter in a little leather case attached to the camera strap because it usually did more harm than good when there was no strong UV light.
Front filters can do minimal to serious harm to photos depending on the qualilty, the lighting, the blue light cut-off level and if shooting digital.
If you opt for a front filter buy a clear one - Canon, Nikon, Hoya and B&W make them - and they often cost less than a UV.
While Peter Jones seems to have done a good job with improving staff at the re-opened Jessops I bet he is not a good enough photographer to know UV filters are a redundant product.
John1958 1 6
14 Aug 2013 12:42PM
Hi Angela, I've done exactly the same move as you have this year, going from the FZ-18 to the 650D.......are you stalking me? Smile

My main is aviation photography, my longest lens at the moment is the 55-250mm, so I have been playing with cropping, and it does seem to work sometimes!!!

How are your earring pics going??

John

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.