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 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?

 
nathan549
Member
155 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2013
     
Apr 09, 2013 02:50 |  #1

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?


Canon 60D - 24-70mm 2.8 L II - 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II - Speedlight 600 ex-rt - Broncolor Move 1200L pack + A2L pack + MobiLED flash head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 286
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Apr 09, 2013 03:00 |  #2

None, seems like heresy to put a UV filter on that lens to me!


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 09, 2013 03:02 |  #3

I think xs-pro means slim mount and f-pro means regular. For a 70-200 an f-pro is fine.
No idea about professional or premium... I just use the UV MRC 010 f-pro on my lenses. No perceptible impact on IQ even in harsh lighting, so I'm happy.

Also, the OP has clearly done research since he is looking into buying a very high quality filter, which shows that he knows what he needs, and he is asking which filter to buy, not whether he should buy one. So I don't see the point of turning this into another ridiculous thread on filters vs no filters.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,605 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 704
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Apr 09, 2013 03:12 |  #4

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?

None here either. Don't see any reason to spend $100 for something that isn't needed.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,476 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 497
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 09, 2013 03:37 as a reply to  @ Sirrith's post |  #5

I've been using Hoya HD UV filters. I've not noticed the difference with/without the filter in terms of metering and quality so don't worry about adding one. The Hoya HD seems to be easier to keep clean than their pro-1 range, and are reputed as very scratch resistant.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Apr 09, 2013 03:47 |  #6

AFAIK, no tests as exhaustive as Foto Magazin's round-up have been redone with some of the newer filters (like Hoya's recent updates) that used resolution as a metric. In that test, using MTF measures, Heliopan and B+W topped the charts for resolution.

Lenstip has more recently done a test that uses light transmission, for whatever that's worth, and found that Hoya's filters did the best.

I doubt you'd go wrong with multi-coated versions of any of these filters (Heliopan, B+W, and Hoya).


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  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
     
Apr 09, 2013 04:39 |  #7

The best UV filter is something cheap and horrible. Spend no more than $10 on Ebay.

That way you'll waste only a small amount of money when you realise that every 'protective' filter will, at some time, noticeably degrade your image.


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
Mag-1981
Senior Member
Avatar
987 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 123
Joined May 2012
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 09, 2013 05:24 |  #8

UV is a waste of money. I don't know about the high end ones but I once bought Hoya mid price range UV filter just to add protection to the glass and I soon discovered that it causes terrible flares. Good CP would be a better buy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Apr 09, 2013 06:20 |  #9

None


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgs
Goldmember
Avatar
2,344 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 1028
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
     
Apr 09, 2013 07:01 |  #10

None is the best.


Canon 7d MkII, Canon 50D, Pentax 67, Canon 30D, Baker Custom 4x5, Canon EF 24-104mm f4, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC

The Singular Image (external link)Richard Smith Photography (external link)
Richard Smith Real Estate Photography (external link)500PX (external link)
Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,476 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 497
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 09, 2013 07:25 |  #11

So despite Sirrith's excellent point of...

Sirrith wrote in post #15806734 (external link)
So I don't see the point of turning this into another ridiculous thread on filters vs no filters.

...we're heading down the usual road ;).

Let's look at it this way: anything you put in front of your lens is almost certainly going to have some negative impact in some circumstances. The question is: are you willing to accept the potential problems, given the benefits of protecting the front element?

Roger Cicala at LensRentals has previously made the point about the low costs of replacing the front element of most lenses - such that it doesn't make economic sense to use a UV filter (especially given the potential problems it may cause). However, I suspect that most people would find it cheaper/quicker to replace a £50-£100 filter than send a lens off for repair.

I've tested lenses with/without the Hoya HD UV filters, and found no discernible metering difference or image quality (even when pixel peeping) in the tests I've conducted. In terms of real world shooting, it's entirely possible there might be reduced contrast, increased flare etc. - but I can't recall a shot where I've suspected problems with the filter. Obviously, different shooters will experience different scenarios, and you must make the judgement yourself.

Having not been aware of problems, and having had small people manage to poke the end of a lens with a stick (despite the presence of a hood), on balance, I use (hopefully decent quality) UV filters*. Different usage scenarios may demand a different choice.

* Except when I'm shooting auroras, mounting other filters on the end, doing landscape work on a tripod etc. (i.e. it's all about scenarios)


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,214 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Likes: 307
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Apr 09, 2013 07:36 |  #12

The best protection is included in the package with this lens -- a lens hood.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stephen ­ Lee
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Apr 09, 2013 07:45 |  #13

I'm curious how the Zeiss filters compare to the B+W or the Hoya HD filters.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Apr 09, 2013 09:08 |  #14

I use Hoya HD's and comparing carefully see no IQ loss at all. Easy to clean as well.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,476 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 497
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 09, 2013 09:53 |  #15

Scott M wrote in post #15807203 (external link)
The best protection is included in the package with this lens -- a lens hood.

----->

sploo wrote in post #15807169 (external link)
...and having had small people manage to poke the end of a lens with a stick (despite the presence of a hood)

(but I do agree that a hood is very important & useful)


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

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

11,133 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?
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 voidholder
1020 guests, 336 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.