The Totally Tamron Website Is Back! Visit Today For All Things Tamron

Which would be the best lens protector?

cheddar-caveman 16 1.2k England
5 Dec 2019 8:56PM
Just buying a new camera, Sony RX10 Mk4 and wondering which would be the best protector for the front of the lens.
These are available????????

Hoya HMC 72mm UV
Hoya Pro1 72mm UV
Hoya Pro1 72mm CPL
Hoya Pro1 72mm Protector
Hoya HD 72mm UV
Hoya HD 72mm CPL
Hoya HD 72mm Protector

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

JackAllTog Plus
10 5.8k 58 United Kingdom
5 Dec 2019 9:29PM
A UV is often used,
A CPL will lose some light transmission, though help with reflections on water/glass and even give punchier colours on flowers.

Sounds like the "Protector Filter is the ultimate in clear filters. " is the bees knees. I'd not heard of it before.

Though personally i try and use just a lens hood as a protector as its got more space to protect the lens from knocks, and is not extra glass in front of lens glass. Sea spray or Holi celebrations might be the only time i use an actual filter just for protection.
cheddar-caveman 16 1.2k England
5 Dec 2019 10:16PM
Thanks for that Jack, very helpful.
Dave_Canon Plus
13 1.6k United Kingdom
5 Dec 2019 10:35PM
The best protector is to always use a lens hood and also keep the lens cap on unless actually taking photographs. If you need additional protection in a severe environment then a plain glass multi-coated filter is best but, if you leave it on at other times, expect lower quality images in some situations.

6 Dec 2019 8:02AM
You might want to look at this review . One of their connclusions, "The most expensive filters arenít necessarily the best. In fact, in one of the tests, a $20 Hoya HMC Multicoated UV beat out a $124 Zeiss T* UV Filter. And Heliopanís $96 Protection Filter ranked almost at the bottom in the transmission test."
cheddar-caveman 16 1.2k England
6 Dec 2019 8:21AM
LenShepherd 11 4.1k United Kingdom
6 Dec 2019 9:29AM
They were intended for use with B&W film prior to about 1995 when B&W film manufacturing changed to prevent them being affected in high UV conditions (primarily afternoon haze lighting) and similarly for colour film from the mid 1980's.

Digital cameras incorporate the correct UV filtration for the sensor on the sensor surface. UV filters often have the wrong correction and prevent some violet and even some blue colours reaching the camera sensor.

Digressing the "cement" used to join lens elements into groups also filters out UV anyway.

There is a wide range of Hoya filters ranging from low to high mechanical quality with a range of prices.
There are other brands too Grin

When I ran an insurance company claims unit as a photographer I took an interest in the issue - and noted far more claims for front element damage when using a filter than when not using a filter.
Put bluntly a thin sheet of glass provides very little impact damage, especially if impacted near the edge of the glass, and often shatters on impact.

Special hard ceramic filters are becoming available - with prices usually starting at more than £100.

As has been mentioned, pols are for a pol effect when light is polarised - and not for protection. Used in the wrong way they can severely reduce colour saturation.

Good advice (already given) is to always use a lens hood (often with the bonus of improved image quality) when shooting, and otherwise to use the lens can.

If you are "high pressured" into buying a filter when buying a lens, buy a clear one (Protector in the Hoya range) and recognise the mark-up on a filter is usually several hundred percent - giving sales people a big incentive to sell them.
JJGEE 15 7.7k 18 England
6 Dec 2019 9:42AM
Perhaps the best lens protector is yourself being careful, but obviously accidents can / do happen.

Lens cap and possibly the hood attached reversed when carrying & not in use is what I usually do.
cheddar-caveman 16 1.2k England
6 Dec 2019 9:55AM
Many thanks, lens hood and cap! Reluctant with the cap as one often need to make a snap shot and very frustrating to find you can't see anything through the viewfinder 😳
thewilliam2 2 1.3k
6 Dec 2019 10:27AM
When I was using Leica M, something over 40 years ago, I did sometimes "take a shot with the lens cap in place" because, unlike an SLR, I could see perfectly through the viewfinder. I tended to use a UV filter as a transparent lens cap.
cheddar-caveman 16 1.2k England
6 Dec 2019 11:14AM
MentorRon 1 101 Canada
7 Dec 2019 5:37AM
I guess my eyesight isn't as good as some because I've used UV filters on every lens I've owned since the 1950s with Kodachromes (ASA 25 and 64). Mostly with my Minolta SRT101 and Canon A-1 35mm film cameras.
With the digital cameras I've owned (mostly bridge cameras plus my current Sony SLT-a58) I have not consciously been able to notice the difference between when I use a UV (99%) and when I take the occasional 2nd shot without it (1%: usually when checking a new lens or lens attachment). I view most images up to 100% (pixel-peeping) on my Benq 22" computer monitor and full-screen on our 40" Samsung LED TV via Google Chromecast. I do not post-process for colour.
I agree that if the funds are there, go for the Protector as it is clear. Maybe I should ask for a few for Christmas Wink
LenShepherd 11 4.1k United Kingdom
8 Dec 2019 8:07AM

Quote:I guess my eyesight isn't as good as some (snipped)
I agree that if the funds are there, go for the Protector as it is clear. Maybe I should ask for a few for Christmas Wink

"Protectors" - the Hoya name for clear - are usually no more expensive and occasionally cheaper than UV.
There is more than eyesight in detecting a wide range of colours.
Formats like jpeg do not record a lot of the colour gamut (particularly greens) - and you cannot see what is not recorded.
Cheaper monitors often project even less of the colour gamut than sRGB - and you cannot see what is not projected.
If not shooting at least RGB colour and viewing an image of an appropriate colour test chart on a calibrated monitor displaying RGB colour - there is no reference point to check which parts of the colour gamut are recorded - and which are missing.
Dave_Canon Plus
13 1.6k United Kingdom
8 Dec 2019 10:18AM
I did read the review which Saxon_Image provided and it was interesting not just about the fact the "the best" may not be the brand or model you would expect but also the useful additional information. He quoted that for insurance claims for a damaged lens there were more for those which had protectors than those without. This is because many have a false idea of "protection". If the front receive a knock, the fragile glass of a filter is very likely to shatter and may damage the lens whereas the same direct blow to the lens may not do any harm as front elements are tough. The only protection that is of any use is if you are using the camera in a risky environment (e.g. sandstorm, sea spray, chemicals etc.) and you would probably have to replace the filter each time.

thewilliam2 2 1.3k
8 Dec 2019 11:39AM
During WW1, they reported an increase, rather than a decrease, in head injuries after the introduction of steel helmets.I suspect that the reason was that, without a helmet, the soldier would be killed rather than wounded.

I suspect that the number of insurance claims with and without UV filters might follow the same pattern. When a UV filter takes the blow, the replacement will cost less than the excess so the insurer never hears about the incident.

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.