What's a good protective lens filter?

I use B+W.

B+W MRC. I deal with wind, prop-wash and grit, as well as branches in the trail; lens hoods can't stop any of those.

Jon wrote in post #16797896
B+W MRC.

There is always the debate of filter or no filter. That is up to you. If you do use filters just make sure they are good. Jon has hit the nail on the head. B+W MRC

It's funny that this post turned into the age old debate about filters vs. hoods from the first response. Personally, I try not to use clear filters, but there are situations that I use them to compete weather sealing or just simple peace of mind. Nevertheless, the OP didn't ask about that. The question was simple: What's a good filter for a decent price.

To the OP - if you're going to use a filter, go for a B+W: http://www.adorama.com​/BW58UVM.html
At 58mm, the prices between mediocre and good filters isn't really that much.
If you want, spend the extra $20-30 and get one of these: http://www.adorama.com​/BW58XSPUV.html
The MRC coating will help keep the glass a bit cleaner.

As for giving advice you didn't ask for - if you ever think of getting lenses larger than 58mm, you may want to consider getting larger filters and use step-up rings.

I wrote about UV filters here:

http://www.amazon.com/​review/R1QN7AZZZ32PW3/

You may find it useful. I believe Hoya's Pro1 line is the best economical filter and nearly the best at any price. Not every lens will benefit equally, though.

"To use or not to use...." a protective filter is a Ford/Chevy or Hatfields/McCoys discussion....and as old as the hills. There are zealots in each camp but the fanaticism seems to be more civil in recent years as enlightenment suggests that different users have different needs....or at least the right to choose.

I'm perfectly at peace with those who choose to not use one. I for one find that any downside is minimal, if at all, and far more offset by the use of a UV filter....when not using a polarizer instead.

I'm in agreement with the earlier reply that replacing a Canon and/or Tiffen filter with an unknown $30 filter is NOT the answer....and probably a good insight into the integrity of the shop's sales staff.

If you use a filter (and I recommend it), use a quality MULTICOATED one. B+W makes quality filters. Hoya makes acceptable ones.

To each his own.

I use hoods, not filters, and half the time the hoods are reversed because I'm too lazy to turn them around. I've never had a scratched front element.

Last year I dropped 3/8" and 1/2" pilot-tipped drill bits onto some (cheap and old) lenses, with and without filters. Yeah, I know, how often will a drill bit come crashing into your lens, but you'll see it takes a lot to damage them. I will say, that the filter seems to have protected the lens in the first drop, but the filter smashed into a gajillion pieces (yes I counted them), before the lens actually broke. Drop height was 6 feet. Ignore the commentary. Film credit goes to my daughter.

http://www.youtube.com …=UUOjukbxS9Ru89​Ee8PUZ6HdA

mag10 wrote in post #16798063
I use them to compete weather sealing

First off, no Canon lens is weather sealed, filter on not. The best you can hope for is dust and drip-proof.

Second, I don't think any of your lenses require a filter to make it dust/drip-proof.

• No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  
• All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  
• The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  
• Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  
• All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  
• Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths - Link.
  

hollis_f wrote in post #16798598
First off, no Canon lens is weather sealed, filter on not. The best you can hope for is dust and drip-proof.

Second, I don't think any of your lenses require a filter to make it dust/drip-proof.

I never looked into the exact definition of "weather sealed," but I did not mean to suggest that it is anything more than dust and drip/rain-proof. As for using filters to compete the dust/drip proofing, I'm just going off of what I've seen in at least the manual for the 17-40L lens. This is on page 1 of the manual:

"Since the front element of this lens moves when focusing (zooming), you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust- and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water-resistant."

There may be other lenses that this applies to, I just haven't spent the time to look at other manuals yet. You are correct that none of my current lenses seem to require it, but I had the 17-40L not too long ago.

mag10 wrote in post #16798667
I'm just going off of what I've seen in at least the manual for the 17-40L lens.

Ah, that's not listed in your sig. Yes, the 17-40 does require a Canon filter.

I personally use Hoya Pro 1 Filters. Decent price, decent enough quality, and I have personally not noticed any negative effects on my photos due to the presence of the filter.

I'm not going to get in to the whole filter vs hoods debate. I use both because I like the peace of mind of using both.

mag10 wrote in post #16798063
...there are situations that I use them to compete weather sealing

Did you ever look closely at the front of your lens where the filter screws in? The lens retaining ring leaves no air gap or moving surfaces that would allow the elements to get inside the lens. So putting on a filter does absolutely nothing for weather-sealing. The elements are going to get in at the focus and zoom rings. That's what you should worry about.

joedlh wrote in post #16798869
So putting on a filter does absolutely nothing for weather-sealing.

Er, so why do the manuals for some lenses (e.g, 16-35, 17-40) include the wording quoted by mag10?

Just curious. Why does it require a filter?