Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Need to get a uv filter for my canon lens that will aid with protection as well.
Can I have some recommendations pls and some reasoning why?
I don't care how much. Seems silly to stick a poor filter in front
of a quality lens
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
You don't need a UV filter because, unlike film, sensor are not sensitive to UV. A clear protective filter will do.
I use Hoya Pro-1D filters but I am sure others have their own preferences.
Another vote for Hoya, although if you've got money to burn, B&W are very good too!
I use UV filters, because that's what I've got from my film days. The clear protector is just what is says - a clear filter that won't interfere more than slightly with image quality, and will protect the front element of the lens.
I have used Hoya Pro 1D and B&H filters. I can't see any difference between them. I had a Jessops UV filter and that was inferior.
A UV or clear does not make any difference.
another vote for B+W have them on all my lens's
I can't see any point in buying a quality lens and then put a piece of inferior glass in front of the quality lens. Surely this defeats the purpose of buying a quality lense in the first place!!!! As for protection - isn't that what we pay insurance for!!
I do think we can use filters for effect!! Polarisers,ND's etc - Then remove them!!
I honestly don't even bother with protective filters. More often than not, the lens hood will suffice.
A lens cap, when not shooting, and a lens hood, when shooting, will give your lens protection against physical contact.
There are some conditions, however, when a lens will get dirty - e.g. in rain, salt spray, blowing dust, etc. In those conditions it is probably safer to be giving a quick mid-shoot spit and wipe to a protective filter than to the front element of an expensive lens.
Don't worry too much about the old chestnut about "why put a cheap filter on an expensive lens", unless you have the technology to actually measure any supposed IQ degradation. If you are only viewing photographs on-screen or as prints of up to A3+, I can give you a 100% cast-iron assurance that your naked eye will not detect any difference between a photograph taken with a £3 Chinese cheapie and one taken with a £120 Lee filter (all other things being equal).
you can lead a horse to water !
read here it's your money the end of the day !
Quote: Read here it's your money the end of the day !
In some situations, yeah...I can see the need, but in most situations...yeah...a lens hood is all I really need. just my opinion.
Thanks guys. Lots of good help here
It is 99.99999999% likely you do not need a UV filter.
The boffins made colour film insensitive to UV about 30 years ago, digital cameras have an internal UV filter, and Canon advised restricting use of their UV filter to black and white silver based film about a decade ago.
Canon (and Nikon, Hoya, B&W etc) make top quality clear filters which are less likely to occasionally degrade image quality for those who prefer front filter trade offs to a lens hood, lens cap and maybe insurance.
UV filters work by blocking some blue light which can affect colour accuracy on modern DSLR's which can record 12-16 bit colour, though it hardly matters shooting only 8 bit jpeg. Being flat on the rear surface, filters are more prone to creating flare hotspots from highlight detail reflected off the sensor, especially with wide angle lenses.
A top quality clear Canon Protector filter in 72mm size is £48.00 at SpeedGraphic. At these price levels for a top quality filter I take the view if you opt for a protection filter the cost of the "proper" Canon option is no excessive
I've seen some difference using a UV filter on my 7D when shooting air-ground. I haven't been able to tell the difference when shooting ground subjects.
I always put the filter on in crowded areas where you can be bumped into by idiots (i.e. aircraft static parks where people are carrying ladders, have loosely slung tripods or monopods etc)
I will put it on if the camera is travelling in a camera bag as plastic lens caps fall off, and because something unlikely will have found its way into the compartment to rub against the lens.
I usually take it off if I'm alone somewhere, but use when it when the camera and lens is being mounted upon, or taken off a tripod / monopod. It surprising how often you can forget to tighten the mounting or a tripod leg, (or the wind on Dartmoor blowing it over...)
This is a perennial discussion with two very firmly entrenched camps.
You do get the ultimate quality when a lens is used without any filter at all but the difference is tiny and can only be seen when you have a real top-end lens.
We use UV filters to protect the front element because its cheaper to buy another filter than spend a small fortune on a new front element. Lenses can cost almost as much to repair as to replace! The long Nikon lenses have an easily replaced, zero-power glass, front element fitted in the factory for the same reason. I wouldn't want a repair bill for a 600mm f4!
If you want to use a filter, get the very best.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View July's Photo Month Calendar