Filter for 50mm f1.8

[Sailfish]

Just ordered my 50mm lens, and am wondering what the best 'protective' filter to put on it would be? It would be use both inside and out, with and without flash, mostly for photographing people.

Mal

[xstrio]

personally i wouldn`t bother, the glass is well recessed into the plastic housing, and doesn`t really need protecting

[fitz]

i would recommend getting the Sky 1-a filter for protection...the 50mm is a great lens but it is cheap for a reason. i have talked to many people who have dropped it and the filter definitely helped protect the glass.

plus the filter will keep dust and scratches off the actual lens glass...if that matters to you.

[lomond]

I wouldn't bother.
A decent filter would cost almost as much as the lens.
A cheap filter would degrade the image.

This is probably the best value for money lens Canon make.
Don't spoil it with a cheap filter.

[SkipD]

Get a good lens hood, not a filter. It will do more for you.

[tim]

I wouldn't throw money away on a filter for that lens. I wouldn't even buy the lens, I found even after calibration by Canon it can't focus accurately enough. The 50mm F1.4's a much better lens.

[lomond]

Of course the 1.4 is better , it's four times the price.

The 50 1.8 I have is very sharp.

P.S. I'm missing something here. If you "wouldn't even buy the lens "then whose lens did Canon calibrate. :?

[shiato storm]

well, I normally use a polariser most of the time (outside on the water) so for me its an obvious choice, it also darkens up the sky nicely for you.
Skylights filters add a nice tinge some of the time, doing a bit more than a simple UV does. personally I don't use them. In my time using an SLR (since I was 10) I never dropped one and shagged lens front element...in case you're wondering thats 15years. but, like the most important piece of rubber and insurance, its always good to know you're protected...

[lomond]

but, like the most important piece of rubber and insurance, its always good to know you're protected...

Classic. ;)

[Sailfish]

Thanks for all the feedback. I'd love the f1.4 but its simply not an option. AU$145 vs AU$600+. The 1.8 has to be better than the 18-55 kit lens. Interesting that most people have suggested a filter would degrade the quality? I have no idea it would have such an effect. Makes me want to take the cheap UV off my other lenses? So I'll probably try it without a filter for a while.

Thanks again.

[lostdoggy]

There was alot of hog wash. If you want to buy a filter buy one as recommended before UV or skylight will work since they don't restrict light. The filter will save you from actually cleaning the lens' glass and its not that expensive of an investment. Look for filters by BW, Hoya, Tiffen and then there are some I just can't remember right now. But those are save bet. And those other guys tell that it degrades the photo, well how about a finger print on the lens. Now you have to clean the lens while the Kodak moment has come and gone. With a filter all you have to do is unscrew and shoot. and that is my 0.02.

[tim]

P.S. I'm missing something here. If you "wouldn't even buy the lens "then whose lens did Canon calibrate. :?

Ok, i'll fill in the implied words if you can't guess them - "If I were in the position of the person who asked the question...". ie I no longer recommend or use this lens, and i'll be selling mine as soon as I get around to it.

[Andy_T]

I use a UV filter and a collapsible rubber lens hood.

They both were included with my 50/1.8 MKI lens when I bought it (used) and I find both very helpful (the hood for minimal protection and against flare, the filter against goo and smears)

Best regards,
Andy