which filter and why?

Hi all relatively new here, and looking for some advice!
i have a 70-200 2.8is and in to me motocross/ action shots I'm also looking to have a go at some baby portrates!! when i bought my lens the guy also gave me a hoya 77mm skylight (1b) filter and a kenko 77mm digital uv filter!
So my question is this, Which one to use and where? If that makes sense. as in should i change between the two for different shoots/conditions. many thanks to any advice and help!

FILTERS?

can any one give advice on which filter to use and why? kenko 77mm digital filter uv or hoya 77mm skylight (1b)

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807555

You likely dont need either. Why are you buying a UV filter?

not buying, have!! they came with lens when i bought that and unsure which one to use and when/ which conditions to use in!

Neither will do anything to improve image quailty. So there is no image related reason to use them. Some make the argument that they provide protection for the front element, there is some evidence to support that, but hoods do a similar job. Some lenses, the 17-40 to name one, require a filter to be weather sealed.

There's a sticky at the top of this forum about protection filters.

Or a search of this forum will show you that questions about "which filter?" and/or "to filter or not to filter?" are asked and answered here on average about three times a week.

That said, I mostly use B+W MRC filters, but I also don't thoughtlessly install a filter on my lens all the time... I only install and use protection filters when actually needed. After all, what can a thin piece of glass realistically be expected to protect against?

The rule of thumb is pretty simple... If you are going to use a filter, make sure it's good quality glass and multi-coated. Quality is usually directly proportional to price. A quality, multi-coated filter will degrade image quality the least... but any time you add another layer of glass between the lens and the subject, there will be some loss. It might often be very little, with good, quality, multi-coated filters.... or a lot with cheap, uncoated.

Nearly every manufacturer makes different grades of filters, offered at different price points. Even B+W offers uncoated or single coated, aluminum frame filters. Their better ones have brass frames. And their even better ones have both brass frames and multi-coating. You'll find Kenko, Hoya, and most others offer similar grades within their line-up.

The only real reason for using either would be to protect the front element of the lens. This might be a good idea if you're shooting close to the action in motocross, where you might get mud or whatever on the lens. Otherwise, you don't need either filter, and definitely not for baby portraits unless you're worried the baby will be throwing stuff at you. The only filters that are normally useful shooting digital are a circular polarizer and a neutral density filter.

How many threads do you need?

ok cheers guys thank you i just wasn't sure if either would make a difference to a shot or no or what they would do? i understand the protective reasons and thats fair enough! but now i know thank you ill just pick one and shoot! many thanks

gonzogolf wrote in post #13915515
How many threads do you need?

At least four.

onionblade wrote in post #13915142
Hi all relatively new here, and looking for some advice!
i have a 70-200 2.8is and in to me motocross/ action shots I'm also looking to have a go at some baby portrates!! when i bought my lens the guy also gave me a hoya 77mm skylight (1b) filter and a kenko 77mm digital uv filter!
So my question is this, Which one to use and where? If that makes sense. as in should i change between the two for different shoots/conditions. many thanks to any advice and help!

Personally, I wouldn't use either but it's a personal choice whether you feel an extra (very thin) sliver of glass is going to protect your lens. My feeling is that it won't, and if it shatters it could do more harm than good, showering your front element with sharp shards of glass.

no point whatsoever changing between the two, they are both equally pointless from the digital photography point of view. Neither will have any affect on your images (well, not a good one anyway). They are, effectively, just a thin piece of plain glass to put in front of all that expensive optical glass you paid for.

No harm in giving them a go, if you feel that the "protection" is worth it. Just try some shots with and without them on, particularly shooting towards the sun, to make sure they aren't spoiling your images at all.

Perhaps we should just start a daily "what filter" thread for the noobs (or at least for those who haven't figured out the search function yet).

In the days of film, the UV filter removed light which could be detected by film (but not the eye); eventually color film had a built in UV filtration, so the UV filter had much less value. The skylight filter removed a slight bit of the bluishness of light.

onionblade wrote in post #13915516
i understand the protective reasons and thats fair enough!

Well, that's really the nub of the filter vs no filter debate. For many people, the evidence seems quite persuasive that, except in some quite specific circumstances, filters for protection are ineffective, or worse, positively detrimental, but even if this were not true, they would not be cost effective.

Or better, pick neither, and don't risk degrading your images using cheap freebie filters. If you are concerned about protecting the front element of your lenses, get hoods and use them.

Just because they were bundled as a "sweetener" to make it seem like you were getting a better deal doesn't mean that they are actually worth anything! Their purpose was to get the sale, and they've achieved that.