which 77mm filter for my tokina 11-16?

[rampanthamster]

Just got one of these beauties through the forums, and given the nature of the shots that i anticipate taking with it (close up, often with camera on the floor etc) i really think i need to get a decent filter on there to protect it as much as anything.

So is a good hoya uv filter good enough for this? Ken rockwell seems to think one shouldn't use a pl filter on this lens. Thanks

 

[redddraggon]

One of the Hoya HD Pros?

 

[ecniv]

Think I have a hoya filter on mine - to protect the lens... poss it makes it slightly soft, but its wide so...

Edit: Checked - its a hoya 77mm uv (o)...

 

[rampanthamster]

you mean it makes the images you capture noticeably softer? hmmn, not too keen on that.. :/

 

[fridge]

I'm not too keen on UV filters myself, they do make images softer, particularly cheap ones! I tend to only buy filters which will add something and have found it is worth paying a bit extra.

 

[cobra_lite]

Hoya Pro and Hoya HMC filters will not noticably degrade your images unless you do forensic work or maybe art-copying (but you probably wouldn't be using a Tokina lens in that case either).
Apart from some wierd lighting conditions - especially at night where you may get spectral reflections and refractions from the glass itself, you'll be fine. Some long lenses don't like filters either because they can affect background details, but they tend to have 'sacrificial' protective front elements as well.

Filters are a marmite thing: you either use them or you don't - and neither camp is willing to admit to the other that they're might have a point.

Put it this way: a lot of our photographers use filters due to being in nasty places where spares weren't readily available.
In nearly twelve years, I never rejected any image that crossed my desk because the photographer used a filter.

 

[fridge]

This!

Hoya Pro and Hoya HMC filters will not noticably degrade your images unless you do forensic work or maybe art-copying (but you probably wouldn't be using a Tokina lens in that case either).
Apart from some wierd lighting conditions - especially at night where you may get spectral reflections and refractions from the glass itself, you'll be fine. Some long lenses don't like filters either because they can affect background details, but they tend to have 'sacrificial' protective front elements as well.

Filters are a marmite thing: you either use them or you don't - and neither camp is willing to admit to the other that they're might have a point.

Put it this way: a lot of our photographers use filters due to being in nasty places where spares weren't readily available.
In nearly twelve years, I never rejected any image that crossed my desk because the photographer used a filter.

 

[hollis_f]

The 11-16 is very prone to flare as it is, adding a flat piece of glass to the front of it can only make this worse.

Some long lenses don't like filters either because they can affect background details, but they tend to have 'sacrificial' protective front elements as well.

Just about all of Canon's supertele lenses have a protective front element that is easily and (releatively) cheaply replaceable. However, this front element differs from 'protective' filters in that it's not flat. It's curved - especially to prevent the loss of contrast and increase in flare that is inevitable with a bit of flat glass.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I have tokina 12*24 which is similar in a way. Fitting a decent Hoya HMC filter slightly reduces the flare if anything. BUT the filter can easily increase vignetting and that is particularly obvious on 1.3x and 1.0x cameras at wider settings. So get a really thin one, as stacking will be not an option.

 

[hollis_f]

I have tokina 12*24 which is similar in a way. Fitting a decent Hoya HMC filter slightly reduces the flare if anything.

Hmmm, a filter that breaks te laws of physics. It must be good.

No UV or 'protective' filter can possibly reduce flare.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoya make all sorts of filters - some are average and some - their HD range - are the very best. But all filters have downsides on image quality in extreme situations where bright lights and dark backgrounds are involved, ie sunsets and night scenes etc.

KR says don't use a polariser on that lens because it is so wide the polarising effect can show as patchy on a blue sky. He's talking rubbish, which is not unusual, as it doesn't happen all the time (usually only when the sun is very low) and sometimes it doesn't matter, or you can tone it down by rotating the filter, or just take it off. And there are still the other benefits of using a polariser when approriate, ie reducing reflections and increasing saturation of foliage etc.

I have tokina 12*24 which is similar in a way. Fitting a decent Hoya HMC filter slightly reduces the flare if anything. BUT the filter can easily increase vignetting and that is particularly obvious on 1.3x and 1.0x cameras at wider settings. So get a really thin one, as stacking will be not an option.

That'll be a first

 

[cobra_lite]

Just about all of Canon's supertele lenses have a protective front element that is easily and (releatively) cheaply replaceable. However, this front element differs from 'protective' filters in that it's not flat. It's curved - especially to prevent the loss of contrast and increase in flare that is inevitable with a bit of flat glass.

Also, as long as you use a filter in conjunction with the correct lens hood, then in most cases flare isn't going to be an issue.
Experience will tell you those times when it might be and for those times you can remove the filter temporarily.

As predicted, the camps for and against are fairly polarised in their views - at the end of the day, you decide whether you need one or not.
As I said, I never saw any images cross my desk where I thought "Oh, he must have used a UV filter on that lens as the flare and contrast are so awful..." and consequently rejected it for publication.