UV Filter Recommendations

Hi everyone,

I'd like to purchase a quality UV filter for my 18-135 lens for the T4i.

Any recommendations/sugges​tions on brand?

A UV filter made of air would be the best. It wouldn't have the ability to degrade your image. A UV filter cannot possibly improve the quality of your images.

A lens hood would be far better for day-to-day "protection" of the lens if that's why you are thinking about a UV filter.

SkipD wrote in post #15029499
A UV filter made of air would be the best. It wouldn't have the ability to degrade your image. A UV filter cannot possibly improve the quality of your images.

A lens hood would be far better for day-to-day "protection" of the lens if that's why you are thinking about a UV filter.

X2. And you wont have to waste time fixing the problems that UV filters create, like nasty flares.

SkipD wrote in post #15029499
A UV filter made of air would be the best. It wouldn't have the ability to degrade your image. A UV filter cannot possibly improve the quality of your images.

A lens hood would be far better for day-to-day "protection" of the lens if that's why you are thinking about a UV filter.

I already have a hood in my cart.

I'm also reading about polarizing filters....worth it? Or a waste of $?

mulderxcoltrane wrote in post #15029506
I already have a hood in my cart.

I'm also reading about polarizing filters....worth it? Or a waste of $?

Polarizers are very useful under the right conditions. Don't get a cheap one.

mike_d wrote in post #15029511
Polarizers are very useful under the right conditions. Don't get a cheap one.

From which brands should I stay away?

I've used the following UV filters, not for the merits of filtering UV light, but as extra protection from harsh/undesirable stuff (mud, sand, beer, silly string, squished bugs, projectile vomit, salt, etc.) that I'd rather not have coming in contact with the front element... all are superb and clean up fairly easy. I use a UV filter only when the potential for disaster is likely. If I'm just shooting birds or macro in the yard, I'll just go naked with a hood. I think your lens takes a 67mm filter:

B+W 010M UV-Haze MRC
Hoya Pro1 Digital MC UV-0
Hoya HMC Super UV-0

Reference FAQ/Sticky here.

mulderxcoltrane wrote in post #15029522
From which brands should I stay away?

Basically anything you see at Best Buy or eBay for $10.

These are good brands:

Seapup wrote in post #15029555
B+W 010M UV-Haze MRC
Hoya Pro1 Digital MC UV-0
Hoya HMC Super UV-0

I have B + W polarizers myself.

mike_d wrote in post #15029571
I have B + W polarizers myself.

Same here... I'm currently using a B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Multi-Coated 45620 (not the latest Nano). I use the CPL with generic set-up rings from Adorama for lenses with smaller diameter filter threads. No complaints whatsoever with any of my B+W filters. Can't say the same for Tiffen.

hoya smc is good enough. but in terms of 18mm end, pro1 will help to avoid vignetting.
I have bw xs-pro nano coating, mrc, hoya pro1, smc

best is to add nothing on.
hoya tend to perform better at creating less flares, yes, both bands create unnecessary flares.

For cpl, I use a marumi dhg super, it has very good raputation here, and is said to be comparable with bw cpl.

For the most part people on POTN will be 50/50 for UV filters. I personally use UV filters.

I only own two lenses, they aren't known to be hair whittling sharp, but I found that using a UV filter didn't noticeably (almost impossible to notice) degrade my image like some people would make it out to be.

I only use multi-coated B+W, which can add up if you own a lot of lenses, but I do believe they are worth it.

Here's a good read by a fellow POTN member. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807555

1. For filtering of UV light, there are relatively few instances where you will benefit because of atmospheric filtration and the ability of optical glass to provide a degree of UV filtration anyway. Above 10,000ft altitude and beside the sea (upwind of atmospheric pollution) are the usually-quoted instances where they may benefit.
   
2. Many 'UV filters' cut-off UV light very inefficiently if at all for our purposes (ie their transmission starts ramping up at <390nm with many as low as 300nm).
   
3. They provide 2 additional surfaces to get dirty / provide flare / reduce quality.
   
4. They provide an easy revenue source for camera shops - arguably the easiest accessory of all to sell.
   

• They do keep small boy's sticky fingers off your expensive glass. More efficient short-term than a clout round the ear!
  
• They provide a small degree of physical protection although this protection aspect is touted to a far greater degree than is warranted. Think about it: if the impact is sufficient to damage your lens without the filter, it'll most likely be sufficient to break the filter. Then you have sharp shards flying at your front element from a distance of <10mm - not what I would call 'protection'.
  
• For lighter impacts, they do protect the filter thread pretty well. But thread realignment isn't a hugely expensive matter (unless Canon, in their wisdom, decide to install a new lens barrel ).A lens hood (shade?) provides equally good protection in this respect and also reduces flare from non-image-forming light.
  

Whortleberry wrote in post #15030525

1. For filtering of UV light, there are relatively few instances where you will benefit because of atmospheric filtration and the ability of optical glass to provide a degree of UV filtration anyway. Above 10,000ft altitude and beside the sea (upwind of atmospheric pollution) are the usually-quoted instances where they may benefit.

Oft-quoted, but incorrect. Well, the besides the sea bit is. The amount of UV that hits the surface is no different on, or near, the sea than at any other low-altitude bit of the world. The only thing that does really effect the amount of UV is the amount of atmosphere there is to block it. That's why there's more of it at high altitude.

However, even at high altitude the amount of UV that get absorbed by the glass in the lens and the filter over the sensor is enough so as to make any additional filtering irrelevant.

^this and - sensors on digital cameras are not affected by UV by their design. At least that's what I've heard/read.

Also sometimes required for weather sealing on some L lenses, and good for having somethign disposable for when you get showered in mud by an MX bike or rally car