UV Filters - 95mm

Messages
19
Name
Mark Moore
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Hi All,

After purchasing the Sigma (150-600mm contemporary) and looking at accessories
I am looking to purchase a UV filter to protect the lens. Sigma 95mm is approx £95 pounds. Is there a cheaper equivalent? I have used Amazon basics so far which have been fine. It is purely to protect the lens.

I have been looking at ranges from
Polaroid
Walimex
Gobe

Regards,

Mark
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,645
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
I use a NISI MC UV 95mm which isn't great but better than the ones you mentioned.
Haven't really found a really good cheap 95mm filter. Perhaps one doesn't exist and that sigma is really worth the premium.
 
Messages
5,024
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
I've not used a 'protective' filters these last 30 years preferring just to keep my lens hoods on instead. The hood on this must be HUGE so unless someone is shooting at you when you've taken the lens cap off what can possibly harm it?

Personally - I'd save the filter cost for petrol, or beers

Dave
 
Messages
2,949
Edit My Images
No
#5
With filters you to some extent get what you pay for. You need proper flat optical glass and if you want to avoid lens flare when a light source is in the frame you'll need multicoating (if a filter doesn't mention coating it generally doesn't have it). I tend to stick to big brands like Hoya and B+W, and avoid their lower-end uncoated or single-coated ranges. Filters with an easy-clean layer like Hoya HD or B+W MRC are worthwhile. However, I've never bought anything that big, and your choice may be limited at that size. If you buy an off-brand, take account of the 1 star reviews (there tend to be lots of suspiciously good reviews for no-name products sold by third parties on Amazon). Whether you need a protective filter at all is one of those things that has been debated for decades, and opinions range from never to sometimes to always. A hood provides a different kind of protection - better for some purposes, but it doesn't stop wind blown grit or rain. Here's an old test with some images:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Compare the test shots with the uncoated Tiffen and the B+W MRC (for digital you can ignore the UV absorption stuff).
 
OP
OP
M
Messages
19
Name
Mark Moore
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I think from the suggestions above I will leave the filter for the moment and use the hood full time. I have a lenscover for the full lens on order. I can save toward the sigma and buy at some point in future.

It was an expensive purchase and will probably cost me my marriage but hey ho.

Cheers all!
 
Messages
23
Name
Steve France
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Having just purchased this lens I have also been struggling to justify the cost of a filter just for protection. Having read your comments I think I will stick with keeping the lens hood on and put the money saved towards a micro lens. Thanks....
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,645
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
I've not used a 'protective' filters these last 30 years preferring just to keep my lens hoods on instead. The hood on this must be HUGE so unless someone is shooting at you when you've taken the lens cap off what can possibly harm it?

Personally - I'd save the filter cost for petrol, or beers

Dave
Don't always have the hood on (well its reversed sometimes) :)
But when I do it comes off and when I don't it stays on.
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#9
Filters don't go well with longer lenses that magnify imperfections and cause image quality issues. Google it ;)

Other common problems:
- Keep shutter speeds UP, even with image-stabilisation
- Avoid cropping, it kills image quality
- Beware of atmospheric pollution when shooting at distance
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,645
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Filters don't go well with longer lenses that magnify imperfections and cause image quality issues. Google it ;)

Other common problems:
- Keep shutter speeds UP, even with image-stabilisation
- Avoid cropping, it kills image quality
- Beware of atmospheric pollution when shooting at distance
+ increases chances of flare and ghosting and reduces contrast (contrary what some of them claim when shooting birds in the sky)
 
Messages
3,283
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Filters don't go well with longer lenses that magnify imperfections and cause image quality issues. Google it ;)

Other common problems:
- Keep shutter speeds UP, even with image-stabilisation
- Avoid cropping, it kills image quality
- Beware of atmospheric pollution when shooting at distance
Avoid cropping, eh?!

My A7riii can crop just fine and keep excellent IQ.
 
Messages
23,089
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#12
Avoid cropping, eh?!

My A7riii can crop just fine and keep excellent IQ.
Then it must be truly amazing before cropping. Having tons of pixels helps a bit, but can do nothing to avoid the physics of lens performance - as resolution demands go up (ie when cropping) then sharpness goes down. Hence smaller format cameras deliver lower image quality than larger formats.
 
OP
OP
M
Messages
19
Name
Mark Moore
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I am using a crop sensor DSLR -Nikon D7100 unsure what the effect will be at full focal lenght (apart from being very close the birds).

I am looking forward to adding the teleconverter (1.4x) to see the effect!
 
Last edited:
Messages
14
Name
Carlos
Edit My Images
No
#15
that lens has an half inch thick piece of glass as a front element. what protection do you think a 1mm filter if gonna give you ? the "UV Filter for protection" is the most non sense argument ever. those things break with a tap of a finger (and those uv filter shattering that easily are more likely to damage front elements than whatever broke them on the first place). Most lenses front elements, you can hit them with a hammer and they wont break/mark.

Use your lens hood
 
OP
OP
M
Messages
19
Name
Mark Moore
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
that lens has an half inch thick piece of glass as a front element. what protection do you think a 1mm filter if gonna give you ? the "UV Filter for protection" is the most non sense argument ever. those things break with a tap of a finger (and those uv filter shattering that easily are more likely to damage front elements than whatever broke them on the first place). Most lenses front elements, you can hit them with a hammer and they wont break/mark.

Use your lens hood
Being new to this means that I get to ask stupid questions I guess.

Thanks to everyone for the advice
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,645
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
The UV filter isn't to protect your lens from taking a hammer or whatever else brute force.
Protects the front element agains splashes (eg: sea water which can be harmful to coating), in my case against finger prints in certain situations.
Something when I am carrying the lens if the cap hasn't been fitted on properly, it can come off and front element could get scratched. May be it has never happened to you but we are all human and it only needs to happen once for your expensive lens to reduce its value drastically.
I rarely use it while shooting, I use my hood as everyone else mentioned but in certain cases it saved me from grief.
 
Top