Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Apr 2013 (Tuesday) 02:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best UV filter?

 
nightcat
Goldmember
4,511 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Apr 09, 2013 10:04 |  #16

The best UV filter is the one that remains unpurchased on your dealers shelf. If you want to protect your lens, forget the filter and use a lens hood.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jam.radonc
Goldmember
Avatar
1,187 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
     
Apr 09, 2013 10:08 |  #17

None but if you must then Hoya HD is very good,I prefer it to B+W MRC. Easy to clean and very scratch resistant.

It will however affect the IQ if you know where to look. I tend not to use it unless necessary.


Jam
5D3 | 450D | Panasonic DMC-LX3 | 430 EX II | ST-E2
24-70 L II | 50L | 50 1.8 I | 100L | Zeiss 35/2 ZE | Zeiss 85/2.8 | Zeiss 135/3.5
[COLOR="Silver"]Sold: 17-40L | 24L II | 85L II | 135L | Sigma 50/1.4 | 5D2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dnauer
Senior Member
Avatar
523 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 24
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Apr 09, 2013 10:51 |  #18

I use both Hoya HD and B+W MRC and am happy. If I'm shooting in demanding lighting I remove them, if I'm shooting in demanding conditions (high wind gusts with sand and snow -- typical of Colorado front range environments) I definitely use them. If I suspect the filter will be a problem I remove it anyway. I do not think you can go wrong with either filter -- just a side comment though - the UV filter doesn't offer any additional feature over the "protective clear" versions from Hoya and B+W so if you can find the high quality multi-coated equivalents, do not think you must do UV instead of clear.


Dave
70D; EF 24-105 f4L IS; EF 70-300 f4-5.6L IS; EF 200 f2.8L II; EF 85 f1.8; EF-S 24 f2.8 STM; Σ 30 f1.4; Σ 10-20 f4-f5.6; Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,521 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4814
Joined Sep 2007
     
Apr 09, 2013 11:19 |  #19

Invertalon wrote in post #15807473 (external link)
I use Hoya HD's and comparing carefully see no IQ loss at all. Easy to clean as well.

There's probably a tiny bit, I'm sure FoCal pro can spit the numbers. I've tried with Hoya multicoated, and they do degrade a tiny tiny bit. Hard to see even at 100%, so in practice it's not a big deal. I'm sure my circular polarizer reduces IQ a tiny bit as well.

as for the naysayers, UV's do have a purpose. I am wanting to use one on the 50L because it's not fully weather sealed without it (currently dont use one). I use it on my tamron because the hood has very little protection. I dont use it on any other lens, but do have cheap UV's in case family members borrow my gear.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,058 posts
Likes: 184
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Apr 09, 2013 12:26 |  #20

UV filters are really only useful when in conditions that you make you face issues such as light dust or liquid spray, sticky finger/nose prints, and other low impact events that may be messy or annoying to clean from the lens without it.

UV filters will NOT protect against:
High velocity impacts from thrown objects.
Dropping the camera
Basically anything with enough force to break the filter.

Anything that causes the filter to break means that you now not only have whatever the issue was that broke the filter affecting the front element (With minimal energy loss from breaking the filter), but now you have shards of broken filter around your front element that could potentially damage things.


Think long and hard about what conditions you will employ a filter in, and what risks are involved. The thin extra bit of glass can just as easily make things many times worse as they can slightly improve them.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,728 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 276
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Apr 09, 2013 12:51 |  #21

nathan549 wrote in post #15806715 (external link)
Im just about to buy a 70-200 f2.8 IS II and i need a a great quality uv filter. I was thinking on getting a B+W mrc UV filter but when i look it up there is a "professional and a premium" style. Which one is the better one?
xs-pro or f-pro?
What UV filter do you suggest i should get?

I use Hoya usually because they are cheaper than B + W. you know just asking about a UV filter around here incurs the wrath of the anti-filter jihadis :D?


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,494 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Apr 09, 2013 13:41 |  #22

Charlie wrote in post #15807948 (external link)
There's probably a tiny bit, I'm sure FoCal pro can spit the numbers. I've tried with Hoya multicoated, and they do degrade a tiny tiny bit. Hard to see even at 100%, so in practice it's not a big deal. I'm sure my circular polarizer reduces IQ a tiny bit as well.

as for the naysayers, UV's do have a purpose. I am wanting to use one on the 50L because it's not fully weather sealed without it (currently dont use one). I use it on my tamron because the hood has very little protection. I dont use it on any other lens, but do have cheap UV's in case family members borrow my gear.

Trust me, I did careful side by side shots with and without this filter in front of my 70-200 II against a brand new $1 bill, which in fact shows immense fine detail... Not a single difference between the two, at 100%, 200%, and higher magnifications. I have done flare tests as well and the result looks identical with and without.

If it is THAT close, it is not even worth caring about. I did however, notice the images with the filter do shift the histogram a hair over to the left, showing some light loss. Again, very slight and would not mean anything in the real world.

I use them only to complete the sealing (24-70 II and 17-40L) and for ease of cleaning. I can just wipe them down with my shirt or whatever else and not care. No other reason.

Also note, I buy the Hoya HD clear protectors and not the UV ones... Save even more money since you don't need UV filtering with digital. I get my 77mm HD's from Max Saver for like $50.

I have gone without filters for months and never noticed any difference so I put them back on. I hated having to be super careful when cleaning the front elements without them. All it takes is ONE mistake with a grain of sand or other grit under your lens cloth/tissue and have a scratch that can cost quite a bit. The (3) filters I use on all my lenses cost less than one brand new front element, I am sure. Worth it (to me).


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
v35skyline
Goldmember
3,571 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Apr 09, 2013 13:44 |  #23

Jam.radonc wrote in post #15807704 (external link)
None but if you must then Hoya HD is very good,I prefer it to B+W MRC. Easy to clean and very scratch resistant.

It will however affect the IQ if you know where to look. I tend not to use it unless necessary.

I find B+W much easier to clean than Hoya HD.


X100s | X-Pro1 | X-T1 | XF 14 | XF 18 | XF 35 | XF 56 | XF 60 | XF 10-24
Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,494 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Apr 09, 2013 14:30 |  #24

I had the opposite experience... Had the B+W MRC for my Sigma 35 and it was not easier to clean than the Hoya HD. It smeared more and was a bit more difficult to get perfectly clear. Hoya HD gives me no problems at all.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 09, 2013 14:55 |  #25

The latest B+W MRC "Nano" are supposed have improved coatings that are as easy to clean as the Hoya HD. The older B+W MRC and Hoya HMC/SHMC can be buggers to clean anything even slightly oily.

Unfortunately, many of my filters are the older B+W. Oh well, I've learned how to clean them (good lens solution.

I just recently bought a used lens that came with a 77mm Hoya HD "clear" on it that's pretty impressive. Looking through the filter, there's no detectible glare or reflection and, in fact, you can hardly tell there's any glass in it. I haven't really tested it... Took it off and stored it in my stack of filters, that I only install in situations where they might be helpful. But, it looks like a good filter.

Search for some recent tests that evaluate some of the newer filters. There have been new coatings offered the last couple years.

B+W high end filters also use a brass frame, which is said to help reduce stuck filters compared to aluminum. Aluminum to aluminum threads can "gall" and get stuck. Of course, most modern lenses use plastic filter threads that prevent galling anyway.

And it's not a consideration with a 70-200, but some filters use a narrower frame than others. B+W's regular filters are almost as narrow framed as some other manufacturers' "slim" filters. (B+W also offers and even narrower "slim" of their own.) Most "slim" filters cost extra and some of them lack front threads, which makes it difficult to cap them when on the lens and harder to store off it.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Apr 09, 2013 15:09 |  #26

Invertalon wrote in post #15808633 (external link)
I had the opposite experience... Had the B+W MRC for my Sigma 35 and it was not easier to clean than the Hoya HD. It smeared more and was a bit more difficult to get perfectly clear. Hoya HD gives me no problems at all.

This was my experience with the B+W as well. It's the reason I don't use filters at all anymore. Well that and that, for some reason, they did not play nice with my 100-400.


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Apr 09, 2013 15:19 |  #27

No filter. If you must the B+W F-Pro's are good


5D Mark II Gripped, 60D Gripped, 450D, 24-105 f/4L, 85 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS, Nifty Fifty, 28 1.8, B+W/Lee/Cokin/Hitech filters, 430ex II x2
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pepe ­ Guitarra
Senior Member
Avatar
800 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
     
Apr 09, 2013 15:32 as a reply to  @ post 15807235 |  #28

I do not use UV filters. I believe you do not need it. For storaging and transporting only, I use the $5 from Ebay.


It's not a photo until you print it! :cool:
Click here (external link), this is myflickr (external link) gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrg35
Member
190 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Apr 09, 2013 17:51 |  #29

No filter is the best. Filters are much fragile than the front element and could actually do damage to the lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Apr 09, 2013 18:07 |  #30

^ Can't agree with the second part of your statement.
Filters definitely prevent dust deposition.
Prevent finger prints.
Prevent condensation related thermal damage.

I have had two broken filters in past due to pressure. Non caused any damage of front element.

And yes they do cause ugly reflections at night, no mater what the manufactures clams about their wonderful coating.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,176 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best UV filter?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gary gruber
724 guests, 420 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.