Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Accessories 
Thread started 22 Sep 2012 (Saturday) 20:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

UV Filter Recommendations

 
mulderxcoltrane
Member
57 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:09 |  #1

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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 164
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:16 |  #2

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.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,718 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 621
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:18 |  #3

SkipD wrote in post #15029499 (external link)
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.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mulderxcoltrane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
57 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:18 |  #4

SkipD wrote in post #15029499 (external link)
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 $?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,627 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 884
Joined Aug 2009
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:20 |  #5

mulderxcoltrane wrote in post #15029506 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mulderxcoltrane
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
57 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:24 |  #6

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

From which brands should I stay away?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Seapup
Goldmember
2,728 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Lake Ridge, VA
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:38 |  #7

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.


Canon 5D2 | 60D | A620 | SD850 IS | SD4000 IS
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 | 17-55 f/2.8 IS | 50 f/1.4 | 100 f/2.8L Macro IS | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,627 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 884
Joined Aug 2009
     
Sep 22, 2012 20:43 |  #8

mulderxcoltrane wrote in post #15029522 (external link)
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 (external link)
B+W 010M UV-Haze MRC
Hoya Pro1 Digital MC UV-0
Hoya HMC Super UV-0

I have B + W polarizers myself.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Seapup
Goldmember
2,728 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Lake Ridge, VA
     
Sep 22, 2012 21:13 |  #9

mike_d wrote in post #15029571 (external link)
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. :D Can't say the same for Tiffen. :(


Canon 5D2 | 60D | A620 | SD850 IS | SD4000 IS
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 | 17-55 f/2.8 IS | 50 f/1.4 | 100 f/2.8L Macro IS | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Sep 22, 2012 22:27 |  #10

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.


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kMatt
Member
113 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
     
Sep 22, 2012 23:15 |  #11

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Whortleberry
Goldmember
Avatar
1,719 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Yorkshire, England
     
Sep 23, 2012 03:25 |  #12


  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.
However:
  • They do keep small boy's sticky fingers off your expensive glass. More efficient short-term than a clout round the ear! :D
  • 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 :mad: ).A lens hood (shade?) provides equally good protection in this respect and also reduces flare from non-image-forming light.
CPL screens (they aren't, strictly speaking, filters). My personal preference is the Marumi Super DHG although there have been occasional reports of blue cast (never experienced this myself). The B+W top-end are also excellent. Hoya less so, although I have no experience of the HD range. Other brands (yes, including Heliopan) are less effective. Some, unfortunately including rather well-known names, are just plain money-pits. Resin-based CPLs I wouldn't even demean myself to use to sabotage competitors images - a guy has to maintain a certain degree of integrity after all. ;)

Phil ǁ Kershaw Soho Reflex: 4¼" Ross Xpres, 6½" Aldis, Super XX/ABC Pyro in 24 DDS, HP3/Meritol Metol in RFH, Johnson 'Scales' brand flash powder. Kodak Duo Six-20/Verichrome Pan. Other odd bits over the decades, simply to get the job done - not merely to polish and brag about cos I'm too mean to buy the polish!
FlickR (external link) ◄► "The Other Yongnuo User Guide v4.12" by Clive Bolton (external link) ◄► UK Railway Photographs 1906-79 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Sep 23, 2012 06:07 |  #13

Whortleberry wrote in post #15030525 (external link)

  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.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Sep 23, 2012 06:44 |  #14

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


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
takai
Member
166 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 23, 2012 06:55 |  #15

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 ;)




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

2,172 views & 0 likes for this thread
UV Filter Recommendations
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
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?
Register to forums
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 archiefilmphoto11
779 guests, 202 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.