Gear Talk > Lenses

Promaster UV filter quality or lack of it.

(1/2) > >>

Today I purchased a Promaster UV filter for my Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM.
After taking about 70 or 80 shots with it at various distances and settings I have decided that the filter degrades the sharpness of the photos to an unusable level.
Is it just hit and miss with these filters or are they consistently poor?  I paid about $36 for the unit.
With the lens in place the camera will auto focus but the image is just severely degraded.  Manual focusing wont' resolve the issue and there isn't enough f-stop in the work to make this filter sharp.
If Promaster wont' cut it then what brand should I be looking at?

Mt Spokane Photography:
Post some of the unusable photos.  All filters degrade the image quality, and a cheap or defective one might be the worst.  However, I've never seen a cheap filter produce a unusable unusable image.  They may certainly have a effect, but unusable?
I stopped using filters a few years back, images are now sharper and better, but my old images were certainly usable.

I'd skip the Promaster.  Camera shops like to sell them because they have a high profit margin (they are, or at least they were, re-branded low-end Tiffen filters).  If you want a protection filter, get a B+W MRC or Nano, or a high-end Hoya (S-HMC or HD).

Same story here...when I first started in DSLR I tried a Best-Buy house brand UV filter on a 28-135 and it was very noticable degredation. Bit the bullet for B+W mrc after researching and asking around and LOL, it turns out everybody was right.

I tried a Hoya Digital Pro that came with a used lens I bought and its pretty good. I thought it was garbage at first, but after inspecting it and thinking it didn't need to be cleaned, I cleaned it anyway and then it was fine. Apparently something about its coating can aggregate a not so visible residue over time that really softens the image.

B + W, expensive but worth it.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version