Is there any point having a UV filter on a nifty-fifty?

D

Dan76

Messages
191
Edit My Images
Yes
As per the subject really! I managed to get a new 50mm with a Hoya UV filter on ebay (£51.. bargain (y) ), but didn't realise that the lens was so recessed.

I've seen mention of vignetting on another thread if you stack filters but wonder if there'd be any image degredation from just the one filter?:thinking:
 
It's a really split subject for debate. Any filter will degrade image quality slightly, but the cheaper it is, the worse it'll be. A really good quality filter will probably cost more than the nifty fifty anyway. Personally I wouldn't bother, just be careful and use the lens cap or a lens hood!

Chris
 
Can only agree with Chris, you won't really gain from using one, especially if you get a good one that does cost more than the lens!
 
The Canon 50mm 1.8 won't actually take a filter and a lens hood at the same time, so take your pick...
 
I have the 50mm f1.4 and being the paranoid bunny I am I have both a lens hood and filter on it.

When buying the 1.4 I did a lot of research and apparently there have been lens failures when people have put their lens business end down in their camera bags. Apparently the weight of the camera pushing down has been enough to disengage the focussing gears inside.

If the front element of the 1.8 protrudes at all when you use it I would definitely stick on a lens hood to protect it at all times.
 
I've taken the UV filters off my lenses. I have not thrown them out, I'll still stick one on if I go to the beach or any higher risk environment but I had some awful results using UV filters.

I almost got rid of a Canon 70-200mm f4 because I was never happy with the result, always looked slightly OOF and soft. I thought "What the heck is it with all the good reviews of this lens.....it's c***!" Then I took the filter off after reading a thread on here where someone had the same problem with a 100-400mm and bingo! Pin sharp!

I certainly would not bother with a nifty, for a good quality filter it's going to cost almost as much as the nifty.
 
I have one on my Nifty for protection (as i do all of my lenses) but i've often wondered if i really need them. I've never damaged a lens etc but i realise now that i've said that or the minute i take a UV off i will do....

I might just do some test shots with and without the filters to see if i can see any difference...
 
Oh gawd another "I don't believe UV filters degrade my images" thread...
 
mak1 said:
I have one on my Nifty for protection (as i do all of my lenses) but i've often wondered if i really need them. I've never damaged a lens etc but i realise now that i've said that or the minute i take a UV off i will do....

I might just do some test shots with and without the filters to see if i can see any difference...
Click to expand...

The trouble with putting a UV filter on a nifty for protection is that a decent one will cost you nearly as much as the lens did, my nifty has never had one and never will I did however get a cheap rubber hood off ebay for it.

Like other have said I've removed the only UV filter I had on a lens (Reasonable Hoya one on my Sigma 17-70mm) as after doing a quick comparative test it was having a negative impact on sharpness and colour. I still have it for trips to the beach or inclement weather etc but very rarely use is.
 
i never have a uv filter on any of my lenses. I noticed my pics were soft when on holiday. Luckily not too far into the holiday for them to all come back ruined.
All my lenses are used with hoods and if i was to got to a sandy beach with loads of wind i would probably think twice about using the camera at least for ectended periods of use anyway.
 
Never use UV, Skylight etc these days. When I used 35mm film I would never be without them but with digi .... never use them. Polarizer & ND/ND-Grads are the only filters in my bag these days

AliB said:
I'll still stick one on if I go to the beach or any higher risk environment
Click to expand...
Yup, it would be worth keeping it handy for protection against salt spray etc

Just my $0.02, Dave B.
 
i had them on my 120-300 and my 70-200, even my other lenses in the past but only have one now which is on the sigma 120-300 as protection and becuase it came with the lens

not used one on my 50mm or my 17-55 ever and there great
 
Thanks for the replies all, really handy opinions there!

I did a test headshots in work today, and although it's a bit subtle, I did notice a little less softness without the filter.. "Good God," I thought, "Is my eye becoming trained already?!" ;)

I also tried a few with the 70-200, and again, there was a difference that was ever so noticeable. Given that I'm very strict about cap-on and cap-off, I think I'll take the 'risk' of not using filters in 'safe' environments, although as suggested above, in a dirty, sandy or wet environment, it'd be worth doing just so as not to get any poo on the lens.

Many thanks all (y)
 
I've always taken the view that since the front element of the nifty fifty is recessed quite a way from the front of the lens (could almost be thought of as a mini lens hood), so it's actually very hard to do any major damage to it, and hence I don't bother with a filter.

That said, nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool...:bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top