UV filters (any difference?)

[darkhound]

So I bought a couple lens recently (17-40mm and 24-105) and want to get some UV filters for them.

Is there any real difference between various filters?

For instance, Hoya UV filters range from $30 to to $110. My gut reaction is that it is mostly marketing junk and the $30 one is fine. But would appreciate anyone with knowledge or thoughts to the contrary! Thanks.

 

[Loswr]

A cheap filter will negatively impact your sharpness, and add flare. A good filter will not reduce sharpness, and will only very slightly increase flare. I'd go with B+W MRC (or Nano) or a high end Hoya. Skipping the filter is better than a cheap one (but your 17-40 needs one to complete the sealing).

 

[skitron]

A cheap filter will negatively impact your sharpness, and add flare. A good filter will not reduce sharpness, and will only very slightly increase flare. I'd go with B+W MRC (or Nano) or a high end Hoya. Skipping the filter is better than a cheap one (but your 17-40 needs one to complete the sealing).

^^^ +1 ^^^

A couple of years ago I had the same question, read the advice, tried the cheap ones anyway, now have only good ones after seeing everybody was right about getting good ones.

BTW, B&H has very good price for the 77mm B+W mrc (non-nano).

 

[darkhound]

:-\ I had a feeling that I would have to pay for a decent filter. Just bought a 6D so this is getting to be an expensive hobby!

Thanks for the suggestions. One question - it seems that even the B&W MRC filter on the 17-40 will cause more vignetting. I know the 6D has an autocorrect feature that fixes vignetting for specific lens including the 17-40, but are there any filters that are especially designed for wide-angle lens? Or is this not really an issue?

Thanks again.

 

[Loswr]

Get the B+W XS-Pro mount. It's a slim filter, but still has front threads so the regular lens cap fits.

 

[Simba]

Have anyone used Marumi DHG Super MC Lens Protect Slim Safety Filter?

 

[khv3412]

You do not need UV filter because the Canon L lens already got UV inside the lens. All you need is the best clear protector filter like B+W clear MRC protector filters to protect your expensive lens.

 

[Bruce Photography]

You do not need UV filter because the Canon L lens already got UV inside the lens. All you need is the best clear protector filter like B+W clear MRC protector filters to protect your expensive lens.

Where did you get that piece of information?

 

[sanfranchristo]

So I bought a couple lens recently (17-40mm and 24-105) and want to get some UV filters for them.

Is there any real difference between various filters?

For instance, Hoya UV filters range from $30 to to $110. My gut reaction is that it is mostly marketing junk and the $30 one is fine. But would appreciate anyone with knowledge or thoughts to the contrary! Thanks.

There is most definitely a difference between various quality filters. B+W and Hoya multicoated filters are generally regarded as the best options. (I have B+W filters on nearly all my lenses, though I have seen tests where the Hoyas have been ranked slightly better for clarity/light passing - though it's probably imperceptible between those two options at the high end). Cheap filters like Tiffen, however, may create noticeable difference in your photos vs. none, so I'd avoid those for your everyday filters.

It is true that you do not really need the UV protection with a DSLR, though I've found the UV filters to be less expensive than their clear glass counterparts. Perhaps if I were working in a studio I would side with the purists who don't use any, but I'm too nervous about scratching the lens itself to go without one for protection.

I have a B+W MRC UV (regular, not slim) on my 17-40 and haven't noticed any issues with it.

 

[darkhound]

I have a B+W MRC UV (regular, not slim) on my 17-40 and haven't noticed any issues with it.

Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

You do not need UV filter because the Canon L lens already got UV inside the lens. All you need is the best clear protector filter like B+W clear MRC protector filters to protect your expensive lens.

Where did you get that piece of information?

The sensor in a current dSLR is effectively insensitive to UV light (I've empirically tested this with a 7D and 5DII, an appropriate light source with UV/Vis emission, and a set of narrow bandpass filters). Therefore, for a dSLR there is no difference between using a clear filter and a UV filter. My advice is to get whichever is cheaper and/or more readily available for you.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Or you could do what I (and many other photographers) do and not put any filter on your lens. I used to do it years ago until I was doing some night shots and the lights were reflecting off the inside of the filter causing a double image. Maybe it was because I had a cheap filter, but I have since lived without them and my photographic life has been much happier. Of course I am reasonably careful with my equipment, so if you are clumsy then by all means get one for protection. But it is just my two cents worth that they are unnecessary. Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not. I suspect this is because the snapshooters are told by the salesperson at the camera shop that they have to have one.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not.

Sounds like you never heard of "serious photographers" who shoot in conditions where dust, dirt, sea water splashes, mist, condensation are an issue. Have you ever seen a photographer at a dirt bike race? or a speed boat race with the photographer following the speeds boats? or a photographer at a sand dune bash? ... FYI they do have filters on their lenses for protection ... unless you consider them "snapshooters". While I do understand/appreciate your point of view/choice, statements like "serious photographers" don't use them and only "snapshooters use them" sounds very naive to say the least.
Tonnes of professional photographers and "serious photographers" use protective filters. Yes there are many pros who don't use them but that is totally dependent on their situation/preference but it has nothing to do with being a "snapshooter" or a "serious photographer".

 

[Random Orbits]

Or you could do what I (and many other photographers) do and not put any filter on your lens. I used to do it years ago until I was doing some night shots and the lights were reflecting off the inside of the filter causing a double image. Maybe it was because I had a cheap filter, but I have since lived without them and my photographic life has been much happier. Of course I am reasonably careful with my equipment, so if you are clumsy then by all means get one for protection. But it is just my two cents worth that they are unnecessary. Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not. I suspect this is because the snapshooters are told by the salesperson at the camera shop that they have to have one.

And pros tend to insure their gear and/or use company/rented equipment.

 

[RLPhoto]

Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not.

Sounds like you never heard of "serious photographers" who shoot in conditions where dust, dirt, sea water splashes, mist, condensation are an issue. Have you ever seen a photographer at a dirt bike race? or a speed boat race with the photographer following the speeds boats? or a photographer at a sand dune bash? ... FYI they do have filters on their lenses for protection ... unless you consider them "snapshooters". While I do understand/appreciate your point of view/choice, statements like "serious photographers" don't use them and only "snapshooters use them" sounds very naive to say the least.
Tonnes of professional photographers and "serious photographers" use protective filters. Yes there are many pros who don't use them but that is totally dependent on their situation/preference but it has nothing to do with being a "snapshooter" or a "serious photographer".

I always use filters because in the heat of photographic battle, you don't have time to cap your lenses sometimes and I could just chuck my lens in a bag w/o worrying about the front element.

A UV filter is piece of mind, and allows me to work quickly.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I always use filters

According to MrFotoFool, you and I (and anyone else who uses filters) are just "snapshooters" and are not "serious photographers"

 

[Studio1930]

Seems to me based on casual observation that snapshooters use them and serious photographers (especially pros) do not. I suspect this is because the snapshooters are told by the salesperson at the camera shop that they have to have one.

Wow, did you really think about this before you typed it? Rienzphotoz already responded with a perfect reply to your statements, but I just had to add to it. Statements like yours make you sound like the inexperienced snapshooter. Of course I have not clue as to your actual experience and quality of work, but your comments can often give the inexperienced photographers the wrong idea. Please don't make grand assumptions based on casual observations. :

My opinion based on decades of experience:

* Cheap filter is worse than no filter
* No filter is sometimes preferable in certain situations
* Quality filter is often needed for protection (sand, salt or fresh water (splash or rain), ice, dirt/mud, photojournalism...)

 

[Dylan777]

So I bought a couple lens recently (17-40mm and 24-105) and want to get some UV filters for them.

Is there any real difference between various filters?

For instance, Hoya UV filters range from $30 to to $110. My gut reaction is that it is mostly marketing junk and the $30 one is fine. But would appreciate anyone with knowledge or thoughts to the contrary! Thanks.

I like B&W Clear Filter. All my lenses are covered with: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So I bought a couple lens recently (17-40mm and 24-105) and want to get some UV filters for them.

Is there any real difference between various filters?

For instance, Hoya UV filters range from $30 to to $110. My gut reaction is that it is mostly marketing junk and the $30 one is fine. But would appreciate anyone with knowledge or thoughts to the contrary! Thanks.

I like B&W Clear Filter. All my lenses are covered with: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

+1 ... I recently got to know (thanks to neuroanatomist) about the B+W XS-Pro filters (I've always used the regular/thicker or the slim B+W filters) ... just last week, I've replaced all my filters with the XS-Pro version ... they are really awesome ... the best part is that they are really slim and you can still use the lens cap or add a CPL without having to take off the filter.

 

[b14]

If you can afford to replace your lens or are earning enough from your work to not worry, forget the filter. Also factor in the degree of malcordination that exist within you