Amazon basics uv filters

Altea

Altea

Messages
33
Name
Mathew
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone got experience of using amazon basics uv filters? Just wanted somthing to protect the front of my lens. What are your thoughts / experience of using these. I bought the large amazon basics backpack a few months ago and have found this to be really good for the money (£35). Wondered if the uv filters were worth a punt also. Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
lotsa opinions here about pros/cons from filters

camp 1....glass in front of lens will degrade image
camp 2.. modern lens are coated - dont need UV protection
camp 3...filter wont protect a 'bump' - use a hood
camp 4.. fit a clear glass 'Protection' filter

I'm no expert of filter construction - this is just what i read here

in general - dont buy cheap - i stick with Hoya HMC UV filters for B&W film

FWIW - i fitted a Hoya 72mm Pro1 Digital Multi-Coated Protector to my Canon FDn 35-105 f3.5
took me a long time to find a mint copy - canna afford any scratches......:)
 
Last edited:
When I feel that I want to protect the front element from dirt, mud, grit, sand etc I use a Hoya HD protector filter. They are expensive but I've had no problems with them and there is not point put a cheap piece of glass not hd front of the lens. The HD protectors are impact resistant to an extent but are better than uv filters in this regard. All of my lenses are 77mm filters so I only have two and swap them between lens as required. I also use the lens hood too but with something like my 20mm f1.8 that's hood is nearly non existent and I'm close focusing within centimetres of the front element then a protector filter is ideal to stop dirt/scratches of the front element. If I dropped the lens/camera a hood or filter isn't going to protect it, insurance is the better option!
 
No need for a UV filter as such. Using a clear filter to protect the front element might seem like good idea, but many here choose not to use them on the basis that optical performance is compromised by a filter. Keeping a lens hood on provides a lot of protection anyway.

FWIW I have protection filters for my lenses and don't personally see a huge difference (reduction) in image quality.
 
Using a lens hood is a must but they don't protect against small particles like sand if you are on a beach. It all depends what you want to protect the lens from from. Don't some canon lenses need a filter attached to complete the weather sealing?
 
I, for one, don't support the view that all filters will degrade IQ. Most of us we could not tell the difference between shots taken with a good filter fitted and one without. However in my opinion poor quality filters do degrade performance. You get what you pay for. Stick to Hoya or B+W and you should be fine. I am of the view that I would rather replace a scratched or damaged filter than the front element.
 
Grumps1974 said:
I, for one, don't support the view that all filters will degrade IQ. Most of us we could not tell the difference between shots taken with a good filter fitted and one without. However in my opinion poor quality filters do degrade performance. You get what you pay for. Stick to Hoya or B+W and you should be fine. I am of the view that I would rather replace a scratched or damaged filter than the front element.
Click to expand...
This and to bring home the point. Went for a snowy walk a few weeks ago with the dog and she leapt up to me for a stroke and managed to plant her muddy, snow covered paw squarely on my front element. Caught it a peach even with a lens hood on (which on my 24/70 isn't that deep), i had no qualms using a bit of sweater sleeve wiping away the debris and not being precious about the filter. Can't say i'd of been happy doing that on an exposed front element and be pushing the snow, liquid and dirt to the edges of the glass where it meets the lens plastics.

Indoors shooting studio shots i only use a lens hood :)
 
When I started out, I studiously used filters to "protect" my lens. Right up until the point I dropped my lens and smashed the filter.

Now you may think that the filter did it's job. Except what happened was the metal ring of the filter bent so now I couldn't get the damn thing off. The broken glass from the filter actually scratched the glass on the lens.

Since then I've used lens hoods and they're far more effective. I've had to replace two lens hoods due to drops. No damage to the lens or front element. The hood is easy to remove, cheap to replace and acts like a crumple zone absorbing the impact (assuming it lands that way of course).

I can just about understand someone saying "I want to protect my lens from sand/mud etc" but realistically how likely is it you will get sand & mud on your glass even with a lens hood on? It would have to be a direct hit.
 
gadgeteer said:
I can just about understand someone saying "I want to protect my lens from sand/mud etc" but realistically how likely is it you will get sand & mud on your glass even with a lens hood on? It would have to be a direct hit.
Click to expand...

Dead easy on a beach when it's hot, dry and windy. Sand, salt spray all find their way inside even a deep lens hood. Or drop a lens hood first into soft mud. Plenty of ways a hood can be useless for keeping crap off a front element. ;)
 
I bet you'd still have a fit if your camera got like this...:D

_DSC0572.jpg
 
Forget "filters" for protection, use a hood.

I don't buy the sea spray argument either - I got my 70-200 a little coated in spray after photographing the recent storms and a light brush with a lens brush to lear any debris then a wet wipe with lens cleaner cleaned it with no issues. As for sand, I'm more likely to take my RX100 to the beach than any of my DSLRs, as I did when travelling, and sand caused it no issues at all, as long as you're sensible :)
 
Thanks for your replies certainly some food for thought there.
 
gadgeteer said:
When I started out, I studiously used filters to "protect" my lens. Right up until the point I dropped my lens and smashed the filter..
Click to expand...

Dropping the lens is probably not really a fair test for the filter and IMHO a poor example of why a filter isn't at times useful. I dropped a lens (Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX) one tine and it landed on the rear mount. Smashed the rear cover and bend the mounting ring good style. Had to send it away for repair, came back perfect. I don't think any front element protection filter would have stood a chance had the lens landed on its front. In your case had the filter not been fitted, do you think the front element would have survived the fall?
 
GeeJay57 said:
Dropping the lens is probably not really a fair test for the filter and IMHO a poor example of why a filter isn't at times useful. I dropped a lens (Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX) one tine and it landed on the rear mount. Smashed the rear cover and bend the mounting ring good style. Had to send it away for repair, came back perfect. I don't think any front element protection filter would have stood a chance had the lens landed on its front. In your case had the filter not been fitted, do you think the front element would have survived the fall?
Click to expand...
Filters are very brittle, even "protection" ones aren't much cop. There was a video on YouTube that demonstrated that even a sheet of paper was more resilient than one of the test protection filters!

I doubt the filter would have helped much.
 
odd jim said:
Filters are very brittle, even "protection" ones aren't much cop. There was a video on YouTube that demonstrated that even a sheet of paper was more resilient than one of the test protection filters!

I doubt the filter would have helped much.
Click to expand...
I agree that for a dropped lens, a filter won't have helped much. I wasn't trying to suggest that the filter saved the front element, though reading through again I can see I need to use better grammar to make that more clear.

FWIW I tend to leave mine on when I'm walking through forest or bushes and the like where there is a risk of something poking directly into the hood. Could always keep the lens cap on I suppose. :)
 
GeeJay57 said:
Dropping the lens is probably not really a fair test for the filter and IMHO a poor example of why a filter isn't at times useful. I dropped a lens (Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX) one tine and it landed on the rear mount. Smashed the rear cover and bend the mounting ring good style. Had to send it away for repair, came back perfect. I don't think any front element protection filter would have stood a chance had the lens landed on its front. In your case had the filter not been fitted, do you think the front element would have survived the fall?
Click to expand...

Yes I think the front element would have been fine. The lens is partly set back so the barrel would/did take a knock but the glass itself wouldn't have touched the ground.

I do get what you are saying about the fact the filter shouldn't have been expected to protect the lens yet "protection" is usually the main reason why these things are sold. My point though is that in a a very common situation (ie. a lens drop), it can actually harm your lens rather than offer any protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top