UV Filter

Mistry99

Mistry99

Messages
136
Name
Deeps
Edit My Images
Yes
what sort of brands should i be looking at and how much should they cost or will a cheapish one do the job??

amazon and jessops have loads but how much difference will a £5/£10 make to a £35???
 
Either dont bother or buy a decent one. I personally dont bother, but thats opening a big can of worms.

Look for Hoya, B&W, Kood etc. Dont know what filter size you are talking, but £20+ would be my aim.
 
Hoya Pro 1 and Tiffen Haze 1 actually do the job of being a UV filter and are decent. Whether you need one is not the subject of this thread but it will head that way anyway, just mentioning the letters U and V has that effect round here!
 
cool cheers ill look into those, ive always been told to use one for every lens but the difference in price just makes me think of hdmi cables debate? £10 or £50/ £60
 
The difference with HDMI is its digital data, more expensive cable doesnt affect the data, unless over long distances, so you can get away with the cheaper ones.

Sticking cheap glass infront of a lens will have some affect. Whether the affect is enough for you not to want them on, thats a personal thing, but I dont have UV filters on any of my lenses. They dont need to block out UV light, as the camera has its own filter infront of the sensor for that job. Thier only purpose is to "protect" the front element of the lens. If you feel having one will protect your lenses then put one on, but dont do it for the sake of it.
 
I really do not subscribe to the rubbish about sticking a piece of "cheap" glass infront of the lens affecting your images anymore. How many times has the link about a completely cracked front element been posted up with no major detriment to the image quality? And that element in the link was mullered!!!! In answer to the UV filter, if you are taking your camera into hostile areas such as the beach, or motocross events, then yes, I can see a need for them, but otherwise, each to their own.
 
wilko said:
I really do not subscribe to the rubbish about sticking a piece of "cheap" glass infront of the lens affecting your images anymore. How many times has the link about a completely cracked front element been posted up with no major detriment to the image quality? And that element in the link was mullered!!!! In answer to the UV filter, if you are taking your camera into hostile areas such as the beach, or motocross events, then yes, I can see a need for them, but otherwise, each to their own.
Click to expand...

Those images clearly suffered lack of sharpness and contrast. Thats what we are talking about here. Stcking a piece of cheap glass in front of expensive, highly polished, highly manufactured glass may affect the contrast and sharpness, yet alone the issue with flaring so often seen with cheap uncoated filters.
 
So wilko you don't subscribe that some glass lets through more light than other glass or plastic?

I'm with you though as I tend to be without, but on my boat, or beach or any hostile information I will put one infront of the lens.
 
hollis_f said:
Look here for reasons why you shouldn't buy a Tiffen filter. The same applies to any cheap filter.
Click to expand...

There's a marked difference between the Tiffen UV filter and the Tiffen Haze 1, In that the Haze 1 absorbs UV and is Multiciated, the UV filter is an el cheap ebay job rebranded that does not in fact absorb much UV at all.
 
dejongj said:
So wilko you don't subscribe that some glass lets through more light than other glass or plastic?

I'm with you though as I tend to be without, but on my boat, or beach or any hostile information I will put one infront of the lens.
Click to expand...

Ok so the cracked lens does show some imperfections but there's no way a "poor" filter, i.e. a filter from kood, Hoya, tiffen, etc. will give results anywhere near to the pictures produced by that obviously smashed front element as was on that set of images.
 
wilko said:
Ok so the cracked lens does show some imperfections but there's no way a "poor" filter, i.e. a filter from kood, Hoya, tiffen, etc. will give results anywhere near to the pictures produced by that obviously smashed front element as was on that set of images.
Click to expand...

No but as I said, you might loose sharpness and contrast. I took a set of images with my Canon 100mmL IS and it had a Hoya UV on it. They were completely washed out and lacked any contrast whatsoever.

Took it off and Viollia. Stunningly sharp and contrasty.

I for one will never use UV's again, unless in a very dodgy environment.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Those images clearly suffered lack of sharpness and contrast. Thats what we are talking about here. Stcking a piece of cheap glass in front of expensive, highly polished, highly manufactured glass may affect the contrast and sharpness, yet alone the issue with flaring so often seen with cheap uncoated filters.
Click to expand...

When I said "cheap" you have misquoted me as meaning a cheap filter. I meant cheap as compared to replacing an expensive lens through damaging it through using in a hostile environment. I personally do use filters as and when I feel the need, but only to protect the lens from damage. All my filters are with Hoya HD or B+W MRC filters, and I do regard them "cheap" compared to the lenses i may need to replace through potential damage from foreign objects.
 
This argument drags on much like the Conservative candidate for Minehead North. :bang:

Kudos to those who back up their opinions with evidence. This would suggest that they are nearer the truth.

Less commendation to those who get their opinions confused with facts.
 
Great points thanks. I'll have to play and see what results I get and what I prefer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top