UVc vs UV Filters???

Justin1971

Justin1971

Messages
252
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at getting a couple of UV filters for Canon 600D lenses (EF-S 18-55 & EF-S 55-250).

Looking at Hoya lenses on ebay there seems to be different ones (UV & UVc). Apart from price, what is the difference and which would I need to go for? Mainly for protection but also the added benefit of reducing lens-flare?

Thanks,

Justin
 
There is no way a UV filter can possibly reduce lens flare. Indeed, it's very likely to increase lens flare. You'd be better off using the proper hoods for the two lenses - that'll protect the front element and help prevent flare.
 
hollis_f said:
There is no way a UV filter can possibly reduce lens flare. Indeed, it's very likely to increase lens flare. You'd be better off using the proper hoods for the two lenses - that'll protect the front element and help prevent flare.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough but.... What are the correct hoods? I've seen the petal shaped ones but are they ok for zoom lenses? I know they rotate as you adjust the zoom and focus and as such aren't they prone to vignetting? I don't want to keep adjusting the hood orientation every time I change zoom & focus.

There does seem to be a big difference of opinion when it comes to UV filters for protection, some say they put one on every lens and it pretty much stays on forever...
 
Last edited:
Justin1971 said:
Ok, fair enough but.... What are the correct hoods? I've seen the petal shaped ones but are they ok for zoom lenses? I know they rotate as you adjust the zoom and focus and as such aren't they prone to vignetting? I don't want to keep adjusting the hood orientation every time I change zoom & focus.
Click to expand...

If the front element of a lens rotates then you don't want a petal hood. A quick search on WeX gave these results: For the 18-55 and the 55-250

Justin1971 said:
There does seem to be a big difference of opinion when it comes to UV filters for protection, some say they put one on every lens and it pretty much stays on forever...
Click to expand...

Here are the facts about so-called 'protective' filters...
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

So, to minimise the degradation in image quality you want an expensive filter. But why buy a filter that costs almost as much as the lens it's 'protecting'?

And just what is a 1mm thin piece of fragile glass going to protect against? If anything is going to shatter a front element then it'll zip through a filter as if it wasn't there, converting it into a mass of shrapnel scratching your lens to bits.
 
I've had small knocks etc which have been protected by the filter
scratches etc on a £20 filter which you can replace, also my filters get dirty (do you ever go out when it rains a bit?) and therefore I clean the filter instead of having to clean my lens which I hate doing
in the studio or an important shoot, I remove the filters tbh

I have heard stories where filters have smashed on a drop but the lens has been fine....well the energy is finite and it has to go somewhere...

also hoods are great. I like the bayonet ones which work great and have taken a knock or two on my cameras
 
Last edited:
Thanks for both your replies, I've decided to get a hood for each and also maybe 1 decent UV filter in case I am in a dusty / dirty / wet environment (as Matt says)
 
hollis_f said:
If the front element of a lens rotates then you don't want a petal hood. A quick search on WeX gave these results: For the 18-55 and the 55-250



Here are the facts about so-called 'protective' filters...
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

So, to minimise the degradation in image quality you want an expensive filter. But why buy a filter that costs almost as much as the lens it's 'protecting'?

And just what is a 1mm thin piece of fragile glass going to protect against? If anything is going to shatter a front element then it'll zip through a filter as if it wasn't there, converting it into a mass of shrapnel scratching your lens to bits.
Click to expand...

the thing they protect against best is crap cleaning technique ,ive seen more lens scratched /damaged by cleaning then by anything else
 
niko said:
the thing they protect against best is crap cleaning technique ,ive seen more lens scratched /damaged by cleaning then by anything else
Click to expand...

nowt wrong with a bit of wire wool & elbow grease :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top