Wtb: 77 mm lens filter

Hoping to buy a cheap filter for my lens, thanks.

Watch out: You buy cheap and you'll regret it with poor image quality.

what would you recommend then? thanks for commenting!

Are you looking for something like a circular polarizing filter, graduated neutral density, or just high quality optical clear glass? My favorite is the polarizer (CPL) as I feel it gives me the best results for the type of landscape work I do. I own this one:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …w&is=REG&m=Y&Q=​&A=details

It's really an excellent addition to your equipment. Cheap filters tend to NOT be multicoated so they degrade the image, can add flare and glare and generally diminish the sharpness due to the poor quality of the glass.

What is your main goal for having some sort of filter for your lens?

My main goal for the filter is to protect the lens from dust and also from UV for better image quality, what do you think of this filter ?http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=pi

LostViet408 wrote in post #17685059
My main goal for the filter is to protect the lens from dust and also from UV for better image quality, what do you think of this filter ?http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=pi

That's a pretty high quality filter and should cause minimal degradation. Now the question is do you REALLY need a UV filter for your dSLR.

UV filters don't give you the beneficial results they offered back in the days of film. Years ago a bought a high quality UV filter for my dSLR but I rarely use it.....only now if I am in very, very hazardous or truly horribly dusty environments, or around a great deal of mud.

That front element is quite tough, cleans well and I ALWAYS use a lens hood for some physical covering. It is not perfect but it does give you great physical barrier protection and will also eliminate/reduce extraneous light that will lower the contrast and saturation and apparent sharpness of your image. Hoods are relatively inexpensive, will bounce off, pop off or break when encountering nasty objects and are cheap to replace.

I would not invest in a UV filter and don't consider it a good investment - put your money into a nice B+W CPL instead, or some ND's and a good hood. But that's just me

You aren't using film, so UV rays don't need to be blocked or filtered- they have no effect on a digital sensor.

I don't use filters except for ND or CPL when needed- I just leave the hoods on my lenses for protection.

What lens do you want a filter for, and where are you intending on using it? Unless you are doing something in extreme weather/dust/mud/etc, I wouldn't bother with it- filters are going to have a negative effect on your image quality- you are placing a piece of glass that wasn't designed by the manufacturer in the image path. No matter how great the filter is, you are going to reduce contrast, provide another glass element that can cause flair, and may cause a color cast.

If you think the conditions you are using the lens in warrant a filter, get a slim filter from one of the major brands, with multicoating.

B+W is a top brand so, if you must, this is as good a choice as any. However you do not need a UV filter - unlike film cameras, your camera already filters for UV. Even the best filter will degrade image quality slightly so, unless you are trying to complete the weather seal of an L lens to be used in bad environmental conditions, it is best not to put a clear filter on your lens. And, in most cases, a lens hood will provide better protection.

Dust wipes off. UV is not an issue with digital. Inexpensive filters create an issue with flare and loss of sharpness. Be prepared to invest significantly if you want a quality filter, but know that the filter is unnecessary.

Get good quality UV filter such as B+W to protect your front element. Don't skimp. That's what I use, all the time.

To use or not use is a RELIGIOUS ISSUE and will never be resolved short of World War 3.

chantu wrote in post #17685148
.......To use or not use is a RELIGIOUS ISSUE and will never be resolved short of World War 3.

How so very true . If you use the POTN search feature you'll see the flames of this RELIGIOUS debate extending back years.

I recently bought a used Canon 24-105L. I rented it for a weekend first. When I brought it home I first did an MFA on it and was very disappointed with the results. It looked very soft and I didn't see any obvious front or back focus. I compared my MFA files with some made with my 28-135 (now for sale!) and was even more discouraged with the 24-105. I almost took it right back to the store. Then I noticed that the front element of the lens - which I had thought looked kind of unusual - was a slim mount filter. A Bower - worth about $5. I immediately took it off. The lens performed flawlessly. I used it on a job that night and liked it so much that I never looked back. When I went to the store on Monday morning to complete the purchase, I gave them the filter back. They told me the put a filter on all their rental lenses. I guess that makes some sense but the degradation was so obvious they almost lost the sale.

Now I realize that a B+W or a Marumi or top line Hoya will do a MUCH better job, but I have seen enough to never want to filter a lens for protection unless it was a bad environment that I needed to complete the lens seal for.

Actually, I would say, in most cases, the reason this comes back over and over is because camera salesmen keep pushing UV filters simply to make a bit more profit. Imagine that - filters, expensive extended warranties, underbody coatings, ect., ect.