Recommend me a UV filter

BIGEYE

BIGEYE

Messages
1,205
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Just had my Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM MKII lens delivered. Can someone recommend me a UV filter to protect my new pride and joy. Not much money left due to cost of lens, so looking for quality & value for money.
 
Its not really recommended due to possible impact on image quality. I recall a thread where a UV filter seemed to play havoc with the bokeh particularly on that specific lens. Use the hood would be the normal advice.

In saying that, I have them on my lenses as sharpness has never been affected in my experience (unless pixel peeped) but flare and ghosts definately occur depending on light sources.

I use Hoya Pro-1, although Hoya HD seem to be a step up again. Not cheap but I couldn't put anything of poor quality infront of the 70-200mkii.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't bother. I've never scratched a lens - just keep the hood on when you're out and about.

If you must, I wouldn't put anything other than a B+W MRC on a lens like that. It seems silly to me to put a cheap filter on such a nice lens.
 
I use that lens for a lot of my work and always use a uv in adverse conditions - by the sea, poor weather, where there may be mud flying around, smoky gigs. Any reduction in IQ is minuscule in most circumstances. That is, as long as you get a good one. I use Hoya Pro. If you can't afford a good one, don't bother.
 
Thanks guys for the help, went for the Hoya HD filter in the end.
 
I don't have a UV filter on any of my lenses. They do nothing for image quality. Only reason possibly to use one is protection of the front element.
 
ecoleman said:
Got to love it :) First three post recommend NOT getting one. Then the OP replies with a thanks for your help, got a Hoya.......

Why bother asking?
Click to expand...

If you re-read you will see that he was recommended a Hoya Pro and 'in the end' he went for one... what's wrong with that? Sure, many people (me included) don't use one at all, but the OP wants to. ;)

Edit:
What does make me smile however is that so many people will happily pay well over a thousand pounds on a lens and then scrimp on filters :shrug:
It's the same with the latest bodies and memory cards etc
 
Last edited:
I can't understand anyone not wanting to protect their lens from being scratched or chipped. If not a UV filter then at least a sky light (clear) filter ,far easier and cheaper to replace a filter than sending away an expensive lens for repair.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
I can't understand anyone not wanting to protect their lens from being scratched or chipped. If not a UV filter then at least a sky light (clear) filter ,far easier and cheaper to replace a filter than sending away an expensive lens for repair.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying on the other hand I don't understand anyone who spends big bucks on a lens to get better I.Q and then sticks a crappy filter which deteriorates the image quality on the front of it. :shrug:

Just my opinion but if you want to get the best possible image quaility it's really not a good idea to whack a u.v filter on the front of your lens. If your worried about damaging your equipment use the hood and get some decent kit insurance.
 
Tommy

Agree a crappy filter is no good for anything, however there are very good filters out there which don't degrade the final image. You stand to get a bad image with a bad lens than with a filter fitted.
Just relying on a hood for protection may be ok while in the front of the lens but a hood is for preventing sunlight getting onto the lens not for protection against damage. It takes very little to get a scratch on a lens and personally i would not take a lens out without some sort of filter, be it UV -skylight-coloured or polerized depending on circumstances.

Even on my Panasonic camcorder I have fitted a filter as there is a risk of the lens being damaged or even the shutters getting jammed with stray grit.

With a clear filter I have not noticed any difference in picture quality, but maybe I have been lucky or just bought decent filters.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Got to love it :) First three post recommend NOT getting one. Then the OP replies with a thanks for your help, got a Hoya.......

Why bother asking?
Click to expand...

I asked the question because I WANT TO PROTECT MY LENS, I thought that was the message I was conveying. I wanted recommendations as to what filter to use, not should I use a filter or not? By fitting a filter to the lens, I am protecting the front element. The filter can always be removed if there is any degradation in image quality, or if there are any lens flare issues. I went for the Hoya as recommended by Andy, so it was not a wasted post nor was I wasting peoples time.

FWIW, if you can't contribute anything constructive, then go and play on facebook or something. :wave:

What filter do you use on your Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM MKII? Oops, sorry you don't have one. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Bigeye, people reply to the filter issue in that way because they DO cause all sorts of image quality issues, and having the lens hood on will give better protection in nearly all situations anyway.
It is actually constructive feedback that will improve the quality of your images.

The only good reason for a UV filter is wind-blown salt water or sand really.
 
Last edited:
Werecow said:
Bigeye, people reply to the filter issue in that way because they DO cause all sorts of image quality issues, and having the lens hood on will give better protection in nearly all situations anyway.
It is actually constructive feedback that will improve the quality of your images.

The only good reason for a UV filter is wind-blown salt water or sand really.
Click to expand...

:agree:

To the OP. Have you ever struck a UV filter with anything that you fear may scratch or damage your front element of your lens? UV filters are just thin glass discs... they don't offer much protection really. You are being offered constructive advice that's all ;)
 
Werecow said:
Bigeye, people reply to the filter issue in that way because they DO cause all sorts of image quality issues, and having the lens hood on will give better protection in nearly all situations anyway.
It is actually constructive feedback that will improve the quality of your images.

The only good reason for a UV filter is wind-blown salt water or sand really.
Click to expand...

...or mud, smoke, grit, mist, snow, when working with children who stick their fingers in your lens, at gigs where the air can fill with beer or vomit at any moment, etc etc.

I have taken well in excess of 100,000 commercial images using lenses fitted with good quality uv filters when I feel that a filter is appropriate. I don't do this for fun or to prove a point, nor do the many other professionals who work this way. If there were any serious image quality issues, do you think we may have noticed by now?
 
jon ryan said:
...or mud, smoke, grit, mist, snow, when working with children who stick their fingers in your lens, at gigs where the air can fill with beer or vomit at any moment, etc etc.

I have taken well in excess of 100,000 commercial images using lenses fitted with good quality uv filters when I feel that a filter is appropriate. I don't do this for fun or to prove a point, nor do the many other professionals who work this way. If there were any serious image quality issues, do you think we may have noticed by now?
Click to expand...

My point was it's not something to have on all the time, and then only when something can get in the lens hood.
It's extreme environment protection, not being bashed protection. Judging by the OP's site he doesn't engage in much of that

The OP had all the hallmarks of the typical "right i've bought this lens, now i'm going to put a filter on immediately and never take it off" which caused the response.

So yes put a filter on if there's particles flying around non-vertically. Other than that a lens hood will offer vastly better protection for all normal use (which seems to be what the OP does)
 
Use the lens hood AND a quality Hoya HD UV filter would be my advice. I cannot agree that there is any degredation on the quality of the photo when using a clean quality filter. Skies are bluer and flare is NOT an issue if the filter is clean.
 
What filter do you use on your Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM MKII? Oops, sorry you don't have one.
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't have one of those, but I have 4 others all of which do not have a filter.
Now that we've finished with the willy waving, I was simply poking a bit of fun, no harm intended.
If you took offence, my apologies.
 
Haha, the poster asked if anyone could recommend a UV filter cos he wanted to protect his new (expensive) lens!
...and by the way he's bought one now! ..it nearly started a debate in parliment

:lol::lol::lol:
 
ecoleman said:
You're right, I don't have one of those, but I have 4 others all of which do not have a filter.
Now that we've finished with the willy waving, I was simply poking a bit of fun, no harm intended.
If you took offence, my apologies.
Click to expand...

No I didn't take offence, nothing like a bit of banter. ;)
All my other lenses have UV filters, all good quality (B&W, Hoya & Tiffen). When I was looking for a filter for my new lens there are so many different types available now, and different coatings, so thought better to ask here. Yes it has opened a bit of a debate, but in the end I got the recommendation I was happy with.
Filters have saved my lenses a couple of times, from dust/dirt, and one time birds ****.
 
BIGEYE said:
I asked the question because I WANT TO PROTECT MY LENS, I thought that was the message I was conveying. I wanted recommendations as to what filter to use, not should I use a filter or not? By fitting a filter to the lens, I am protecting the front element. The filter can always be removed if there is any degradation in image quality, or if there are any lens flare issues. I went for the Hoya as recommended by Andy, so it was not a wasted post nor was I wasting peoples time.

FWIW, if you can't contribute anything constructive, then go and play on facebook or something. :wave:

*****What filter do you use on your Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM MKII? Oops, sorry you don't have one*****. :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh dear...
 
valb said:
Use the lens hood AND a quality Hoya HD UV filter would be my advice. I cannot agree that there is any degredation on the quality of the photo when using a clean quality filter. Skies are bluer and flare is NOT an issue if the filter is clean.
Click to expand...

They don't make the skies bluer, if anything the reduction in contrast (which even "good" UV filters will suffer from) will weaken a blue sky.
 
realspeed said:
Tommy

Agree a crappy filter is no good for anything, however there are very good filters out there which don't degrade the final image. You stand to get a bad image with a bad lens than with a filter fitted.
Just relying on a hood for protection may be ok while in the front of the lens but a hood is for preventing sunlight getting onto the lens not for protection against damage. It takes very little to get a scratch on a lens and personally i would not take a lens out without some sort of filter, be it UV -skylight-coloured or polerized depending on circumstances.

Even on my Panasonic camcorder I have fitted a filter as there is a risk of the lens being damaged or even the shutters getting jammed with stray grit.

With a clear filter I have not noticed any difference in picture quality, but maybe I have been lucky or just bought decent filters.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

I have to say I don't agree. :thinking:

In my experience (at one point I had a U.V filter on all of my glass) even the very best filters on the market will degrade image quality. No doubt some less than others but ALL will, to a certain degree. I don't have the test images anymore but I tested all of my glass at one point with and without and I felt there was a fair bit of difference, enough to warrant no longer using them anyway.

At the end of the day it comes down to what your happier with. For me I want to leach the best possible image quality I can out of my gear and that is why I don't use U.V filters. As someone else mentioned above, I would possibly consider using one were wind-blown salt water or sand would be an issue.
 
There's no doubt that even the best filters can and will degrade image quality in some circumstances. When shooting into bright back-lit scenes, you will get some veiling glare - basically uncontrolled reflections that bounce around inside the lens and cover the image with a slight fog. Mostly you won't notice it without a direct with/without comparison, but it will be there. In a difficult situation like a studio shot with a bright white background, it will be very noticeable.

Then there is ghosting, when bright light sources bounce off the shiny surface of the sensor and are reflected back again off the rear of the fiilter. Most noticeable with night street scenes etc.

The third problem is sharpness. Not usually a problem, but longer lenses only look through a small portion in the centre of the filter and any imperfections are greatly magnified. Visible as softening of in-focus areas, and can also create unusual patterns in the out of focus background.

Plenty of examples of all these effects posted here on a fairly regular basis.
 
BIGEYE said:
Thanks guys for the help, went for the Hoya HD filter in the end.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim

As you've already bought one, I would recommend you try it and take some shots with and without the filter on to make sure you don't get any problems with the filter - as you just spent a serious amount of money on a superb lens, you need to make sure it's not going to effect it.

Enjoy your new lens :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top