UV, C/PL or Both?

mortm

mortm

Messages
102
Name
Melanie
Edit My Images
No
Looking to buy a couple of 77mm filters for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and was wondering if I would need both. The UV was to be more for lens protection but I was wondering whether if you had just the C/PL you could just dial it out when not in play?

I'm looking at the Sigma filters which aren't cheap so don't want to be spending money which could go into other things.

Any help appreciated.

Mel:love:
 
Its an expenise lens so I would recomend using a UV. If you use a C/PL then you will loose a few stops of light so I wouldnt recomend using one all the time. Get one of each imo :)
 
You will almost certainly need a polariser especially if you want to do landscapes. I'm a bit of a philistine perhaps but I use my polariser as lens protection as well, and only take it off when needed. I don't bother with a uv.

Regarding the UV filter, people now seem to say that even a good one may degrade your images, and recommend using a lens cap when not in use, and a lens hood for protection.

Others may advise differently ....:)
 
Good point Jerry, I could just go for the C/PL, for now at least. I have both for my 16-80 but all these filters are working out expensive unless I go with a cheaper brand
 
You can get Hoya Pro1 filters quite cheap on Ebay.
I picked up a 67mm CPL for £30 and a 58mm for £25.
Both brand new and at first I wondered if they were fake but both appear legit.
I think the sellers buy in bulk from HK as the prices seem similar to HK prices.
 
Thanks for all your help and suggestions. Just ordered both. Not a bad price: £90 for the C/PL and £40 for the UV. Both Sigma so I am hoping they are well matched to their lenses.

Thanks Hashcake, I use some Hoya filters and Marumi and I am happy with both makes. But for some reason feel that when paired with an expensive lens it's worth spending the extra in case they detriment the lens quality so I have zeiss on my 16-70 and now should have Sigma (heard nothing about their filter quality so this is a gamble) on my 70-200. My other lenses are happy with the Hoya and Marumi. Looking through my camera bag I seem to have filters I can't even use, mostly 55mm so will have to stick them on ebay and see if I can get some pennies back.

Oh and anyone after one of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 bla blas it is worth checking out devoncamera or Amazon if out of stock and you can't wait.

Mel:love:
 
i've only ever used a uv filter one one occasion; I was shooting a race from a launch and the wind was in such a direction that the lens (100-400) was getting sprayed, so knowing I'd have to wipe it off a lot I put a filter up front and dealt with it. other than that a uv isn't really necessary. of course a sales man will always say its a good idea to have one. I prefer a lens cap myself it comes with the lens!
 
I know what you mean but it is easier and better to clean a filter than the lens. The way I see it is that if I was buying a second hand lens I would feel better 'knowing' it had been behind a filter. It is recommended to clean lenses as few times as possible with a filter in place you should never have to clean the lens glass.
 
I used to use UV filters all of the time for lens protection but have now abandoned the idea except in harsh conditions (sea, very dusty environments etc) - after time I've come to the conclusion that they're not really needed & could possibly reduce IQ...

A polariser is an essential filter for anyone doing landscapes, although the focal range of 70-200 probably isn't the "ideal" for this type of shot & you may find you hardly use the polariser ??

simon
 
Yes totally agree Simon, I imagine most landscape will be done with the 16-80 but you never know. I must admit.... and this is hard for a lady..... I am actually getting fed up with spending. I now need to get another camera day bag as the camera + 2 lenses and 2x converter don't fit in my Crumpler Pretty Boy XL so more expense :shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top