Filter Recommendations

beemerbaz said:
I'm looking for a good 77mm filter for the front of a lens, not needed for any special effects but to protect the lens. Ive seen the £1 ones on ebay but guess they are not what I'm looking for ?

Any online shop suggestions ?
Click to expand...
There's a train of thought that filters can actually lead to more damage to lenses, and that using the lens hood offers better protection. But that aside don't scrimp on filters. You don't have to spend £100's, but certainly don't buy one for a fiver or so. I bought a hoya revo which does not appear to affect IQ in any way.
 
The truth is, putting anything in front of the lens will degrade its image, no matter how good. Even the air in front of the lens can degrade the image, if you shoot a long lens, you can certainly tell the difference when shooting in a god condition or say a misty day or in a polluted place.

With that said…..spend something proportionate. Don't put a £10 filter in front of a £1,000 lens and don't bother even putting any filter on a £100 lens because if that breaks, you might as well replace the lens.

Rule of thumb…..I generally just get B+W F-Pro filters, at the desire size.
 
Some people never use them, reasoning they will degrade the image. Some people always use them, reasoning the image degradation is not noticeable in normal conditions. Some people use them depending on the conditions, putting them on when there is wind-blown rain and dust about, but taking them off when shooting into the sun or shooting city lights at night (when flare is more likely to be an issue). The choice is yours, and you will see all these opinions in a typical thread about filters! A hood is a good idea in any case, and offers a different type of protection. If you want to use a filter, I would suggest one with both anti-reflection multicoating to reduce flare, and an outer 'easy clean' layer. High quality examples include B+W MRC, B+W MRC Nano, Hoya HD and Hoya Fusion/Evo. Note that both Hoya and B+W also make uncoated filters (not a good choice for general use) and you'll also find older Hoya HMC and Pro-1 filters that have good anti-reflective coatings, but lack the 'easy clean' layer.
 
Last edited:
It depends... if you’re taking pictures of dogs it’s easier to remove and clean a filter covered in nose prints than clean the front element of the lens.

Also note that some “weather resistant” lenses state they need to be used with a filter for weather resistance to be effective.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
It depends... if you’re taking pictures of dogs it’s easier to remove and clean a filter covered in nose prints than clean the front element of the lens.

Also note that some “weather resistant” lenses state they need to be used with a filter for weather resistance to be effective.
Click to expand...
I'd actually disagree with that, I find the lens element easier to clean as the filters feel that bit more fragile to me. Obviously YMMV (y)
 
I'm using Hoya HD clear ones mainly due to the places where I shoot. They are one of the most expensive clear ones out there, but well worth it over some of the cheap ones.

I have found them to be better than the previous Hoya Fusion and Hoya Pro 1 ones I had. The Pro 1 being the hardest to clean!

Review below where they compare it to others including cheap ones. You can see how attaching cheap ones can make things so much worse:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/hoya-hd-protector-filter-review-27554
 
Last edited:
There is some great advice above Barry. Generally there is the 2 schools of thought as discussed above. There is no doubt putting something I front of the lens will cause some degradation of the image to a degree. How much is always debatable. But I think you have to think relatively here. If for example you have a £2000 lens on the front of the camera and you are looking for the peak IQ and knife sharp image why would you degrade the image any more than you have to? In that case if you wanted to fit a filter you would at least want it to be as optically as good as it can be.
Most people will either not use a filter at all and be religious with fitting the lens hood or use the filter all the time I guess.
Lens hood is always a brilliant idea anyway but with certain lenses it affords little protection (on ultra wide angle lenses for example).

Personally when I moved to full frame and purchased what to me were excruciatingly expensive lenses, I did fit equally excruciatingly expensive filters:eek:
Took me ages to save up for this kit so I quaked in my boots at the thought of dinging it!
I do vary between having the filters on and off depending on what I'm shooting. But if there off I invariably have the hood on.
I have mostly B+W filters and a selection of others the Hoya pro are probably good if you are on a budget but as @JJ! Says they can be a bit of a bugger to clean.

Keep an eye out at dealers for any used filters, most dealers now have used sales area and you could probably pick up a good quality one at sensible prices, without having to result to eBay and the risk of picking up a fake piece of greenhouse glass:D.
Also a good tip is to purchase some filter pliers (for want of a better term) these generally come in 2 sizes fits all. They are just a plastic grip that goes around the filter to help you unscrew it. It can be a bugger when the filter gets stuck on the lens thread and you have condensation on the filter, or if you have fitted a 10 stop filter and can't remove it!!
All the best(y)
 
37 or so years as a photographer and 10 years as a Wedding Pro - never used a filter, never scratched a lens and I find any muck comes off well enough with a bit of spit and a wipe with a t-shirt

I have two factors in place for protection

1 - ALWAYS use whatever lens hood comes with the lens

2 - don't be stupid and treat gear with respect

Dave
 
I shoot in a sand school, and my last 50mm got all sorts of grit in it and was not pretty so I have them on for this reason.

It's not me being stupid, it's just the surroundings I more than often find myself shooting in and a lens hood did not help.
 
jerry12953 said:
Cough........
Click to expand...

More of a gentle blow actually - it covers the front element in tiny drops of spit, this is usually enough :)

Clean cotton t-shirt I may add

And no I'm not joking, over the years I've had 'proper' lens fluid and lens papers, expensive lens cloths, cheap lens cloths etc. but never found them to be any better

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
More of a gentle blow actually - it covers the front element in tiny drops of spit, this is usually enough :)

Clean cotton t-shirt I may add

And no I'm not joking, over the years I've had 'proper' lens fluid and lens papers, expensive lens cloths, cheap lens cloths etc. but never found them to be any better

Dave
Click to expand...
There might be a market for that spit Dave! If you could bottle it there's always someone who will buy it.... I can see the advertising slogan now:D
 
Fee split or free spit... now there's the marketing consultancy commission dilemma! :D

Joking aside, I use filters on all my DSLR lenses, but high-quality ones such as the Hoya HD UV filter. I find this keeps the front element of my lenses nice and clean, also I don't worry too much when cleaning a filter with a blower brush, a 'huff' of breath and a filter type lens pen, they come up looking like new. If I ever do make a pig's ear of cleaning a filter and scratch it, then it's £40 or so for a new one and 30 seconds to fit it, not a couple of hundred quid and three or four weeks without the lens to have a new font element fitted!

A filter is also required to provide the full 'weather resistance' on some of my L series lenses. Does a good-quality UV filter reduce image quality? Not that I've ever noticed, and I imagine having a lens with a hazy or 'spotty' front element will probably result in image quality loss anyway, particularly when shooting into a strong light-source... which is the way they seem to test the performance of filters.

"You don't need a UV filter on modern DSLR cameras as there's one already built in" seems to be something of a modern mantra trotted out by the anti-filter brigade. I also use my EF lenses on my 35mm Canon EOS SLR film camera, so that doesn't apply to me (there's always one isn't there!).

Have a look at this review and I'm sure you'll agree there's nothing much between the naked lens and a good quality UV filter in terms of image quality loss. https://www.ephotozine.com/article/hoya-hd-uv-filter-review-27788 I think it would be interesting to see the test repeated between a lens fitted with the winning UV filter and a lens with a naked but slightly hazy/spotty or cleaning swirl marked front element.
 
Last edited:
The Hoya HD ones and so much easier to clean than the Pro-1 filters which once smeared are a blimmin mare to clean up.

Mine are only clear filters and are by far the best filters I have used.

Not cheap, but for good reason.

I did repeat tests using my 70-200 F4 with and without and I couldn’t see any difference at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top