Help needed with filter as never bought one before

[DayDreamer]

I am looking to buy an entry level DLSR and keep reading that a filter is a good idea to protect the lens. But which type and how much would it cost as the £400 I am about to spend on the camera is emptying my coffers. :shake:

Sorry for asking what to many must be a very silly and basic question :baby:

Your help would be good

 

[odd jim]

A filter is useless at protecting lenses. the thin glass or plastic has no protective qualities at all as anything strong enough to damage the front element will smash through it. Use hoods for protection.

Only use filters for creative effects, such as polarisers.

 

[Moreorless]

Opinion is divided on whether there worthwhile or not, a cheap UV filter will hurt your image quality while one that won't isnt very cheap.

Personally I'd say if your just buying a DSLR with a cheap kit lens its probabley not worth bothering with anything to protect it.

 

[hoolio]

Opinion is divided on whether there worthwhile or not,

Personally I'd say if your just buying a DSLR with a cheap kit lens its probabley not worth bothering with anything to protect it.

Well this is not quite true is it, as has been discussed on here at length even the nosayers have said they will use them when there is a possibility of water spray, dirt etc. Even a "cheap kit lens" may be a large financial investment to some.

 

[brad_wakefield]

I use my camera everyday for work, I have uv filters on all of my len's apart from my fisheye, I have never noticed a problem, if you can find a fault with my pictures due to a uv filter let me no, they protect the front element, sometimes a lens hood can be cumbersome. get the best you can afford you will be fine B+W or Hoya, amazon is a cheep place to purchase.

 

[odd jim]

Well this is not quite true is it, as has been discussed on here at length even the nosayers have said they will use them when there is a possibility of water spray, dirt etc. Even a "cheap kit lens" may be a large financial investment to some.

Well that's not true either, as I dont use them even at rallies or shooting sea scapes. Just a clean if it needs it when I get in.

 

[hoolio]

Well that's not true either, as I dont use them even at rallies or shooting sea scapes. Just a clean if it needs it when I get in.

This guy is just making his first foray into half serious photography, how long have you been doing it? The responses have not really answered his question, you have your opinion but it shouldn't be too difficult to recommend a filter if he did then want to fit one at the same time.

 

[odd jim]

This guy is just making his first foray into half serious photography, how long have you been doing it? The responses have not really answered his question, you have your opinion but it shouldn't be too difficult to recommend a filter if he did then want to fit one at the same time.

How long I've been doing it is irrelevant, but as you ask, over 20 years. And in that time I've never damaged a front element.

In trying to help the op here, if I can prevent him from being conned by salesmen telling him he needs a UV or protection filter, job done.

 

[hoolio]

It is relevant as you clearly know what you are doing, a beginner faced with a fingerprint or mud on the front element is more than likely going to make things worse. I think as a beginner he should be given the advice he wanted not the kind of patronising response he got from moreorless.

 

[odd jim]

It is relevant as you clearly know what you are doing, a beginner faced with a fingerprint or mud on the front element is more than likely going to make things worse. I think as a beginner he should be given the advice he wanted not the kind of patronising response he got from moreorless.

I agree with that, and maybe his reply could have been a little more constructive... Aside from that, I believe though as a beginner he should receive every opinion going then decide for himself, hense my replies but I do see what you are saying.

 

[Moreorless]

Well this is not quite true is it, as has been discussed on here at length even the nosayers have said they will use them when there is a possibility of water spray, dirt etc. Even a "cheap kit lens" may be a large financial investment to some.

The problem is though that a UV filter that doesnt damage image quality is going to be a large investment aswell.

 

[Yardbent]

look at the the Lenstip review of UV filters............''link''
chapter 4 = results
i am well aware a UV per se is not needed on a DSLR, but the OP is talking 'protection'

the Hoya HMC UV (0) did very well

so i bought used off eBay for all 10 of my 35mm film lenses - paid between £5 and £9 52mm filter size

new...a 52mm Hoya HMC UV (0) is only £16...so not a 'large investment' for peace of mind

 

[Euan]

im anothe rone who isnt a big fan of filters, i think they are a good idea on a macro lens as you can easily brush against something and scratch the element. I have a filter on my 120-300mm as it came with the lens and it matches it but to be honest if it hadnt come with it i wouldnt bother. I prefer lens hoods to protect

 

[DayDreamer]

Thank you all so much for giving your time to help me on this one.

I never realised something as small would start a controversy

I always get my glasses (on my face ) smeared so may get my camera ones similarly dirty

I may get one (a filter) but in due course - no rush. I also now realise the hood is more than a cosmetic item to say "look at my posh camera"

Again thanks all

 

[DayDreamer]

look at the the Lenstip review of UV filters............''link''
chapter 4 = results
i am well aware a UV per se is not needed on a DSLR, but the OP is talking 'protection'

the Hoya HMC UV (0) did very well

so i bought used off eBay for all 10 of my 35mm film lenses - paid between £5 and £9 52mm filter size

new...a 52mm Hoya HMC UV (0) is only £16...so not a 'large investment' for peace of mind

Thanks for the link to filter reviews

Good for me to take a look at the lens.

 

[tomqh]

When I first bought my camera, I was paranoid that I'd accidentally damage the lens front element. I am super careful with my gear, to the point that I always very gently put my camera down on tables for fear of scratching the base lol.

A UV filter helped me overcome that fear, and allowed me to be less worried. I have never seen any detriment using uv filters (Hoya hmc primarily) but also now use without filter on some of my lenses.

So i would recommend it as a newbie, then decide later once you feel more confident.

 

[Trig's]

I never realised something as small would start a controversy

When you get a minute or two have a search for non oem battery grips and batteries..... Then you'll see some sparks

 

[DayDreamer]

When you get a minute or two have a search for non oem battery grips and batteries..... Then you'll see some sparks

And Nikon v Canon

 

[mike_6480]

A filter is useless at protecting lenses. the thin glass or plastic has no protective qualities at all as anything strong enough to damage the front element will smash through it. Use hoods for protection.

Only use filters for creative effects, such as polarisers.

That's incorrect. My 2 year old knocked my camera bag on the floor. The uv filter on the lens I had attached to my camera was smashed, but my lens was totally untouched. Best thing I have bought for my camera

 

[odd jim]

It's not incorrect.

The filter wouldn't have prevented lens damage. Chances are if the lens was undamaged from this, the lens would have been undamaged anyway.

A filter has far lower tolerances to blunt force than any piece of photography kit I can think of. You're lucky the fragments of filter didn't damage the front element when they shattered, or that the filter thread didn't jam on the lens.

A lucky escape on two counts.

 

[MartynK]

That's incorrect. My 2 year old knocked my camera bag on the floor. The uv filter on the lens I had attached to my camera was smashed, but my lens was totally untouched. Best thing I have bought for my camera

I'm not with you here. Are you suggesting that the filter protected the lens in some way, because I can't see any relationship between the broken filter and the undamaged lens at all?