Best Buy: Mandatory UV Filter for Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens?

[EricFiskCGD]

My wife and I were at Best Buy and I was debating on buying the EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens with what little coin I had left on a gift card. I had exactly $125 dollars left - but the salesman insisted that I buy a UV filter for it because without it, UV rays would destroy the lens or my sensor!

I shrugged my shoulders and say that I would have to research this claim - and I walked out.

If I MUST have a UV filter on this lens, why doesn't it come with one or was this salesperson trying to screw me?

 

[privatebydesign]

He was either, an idiot, misinformed, or trying to con you.

You do not need a UV filter on any lens ever, they are useful particularly at higher altitudes when using film. Some/many swear by them as protection for the front element as an unrelated side use too. All digital camera sensors have UV blocking filters built in.

 

[Loswr]

UV filters are necessary, because they have a really high markup that means more profit for the store and/or more commission for the salesperson.

 

[Don Haines]

He was either, an idiot, misinformed, or trying to con you.

You do not need a UV filter on any lens ever, they are useful particularly at higher altitudes when using film. Some/many swear by them as protection for the front element as an unrelated side use too. All digital camera sensors have UV blocking filters built in.

Agreed!

UV and skylight filters are a holdout from the days of film. Your DSLR is not sensitive to UV... It is not going to show up in pictures and it will not harm your sensor.

You can use a filter to provide protection to your lens, but unless it is a high quality filter it will degrade your image. You will not find a high quality filter at best buy.

 

[dgatwood]

UV filters are necessary, because they have a really high markup that means more profit for the store and/or more commission for the salesperson.

They're also necessary for some lenses to be fully weather sealed, but obviously that doesn't apply to the 50mm f/1.8 II, which isn't weather sealed at all, AFAIK.

 

[AlanF]

The front element of the 50/1.8 is set well back from the front of the mount and is well protected without the need for a filter. I do protect expensive lenses that have the front element flush with the mount, but that is just a personal foible. There is absolutely no need for a uv filter with the 50mm.

 

[ahab1372]

The front element of the 50/1.8 is set well back from the front of the mount and is well protected without the need for a filter. I do protect expensive lenses that have the front element flush with the mount, but that is just a personal foible. There is absolutely no need for a uv filter with the 50mm.

Just to make it clear: If you want a filter to protect the front element of a lens, it doesn't have to be an UV filter. A clear filter works just fine. UV filters are sometimes easier to find, that's why they are also used for lenses on digital cameras.
The protection mentioned here is protection from mechanical impact and/or moisture. There is no need to protect lens or sensor from UV light. For a $120 dollar lens it is in my opinion overkill.
UV protection for your skin however is recommended

 

[tolusina]

BestBuy.
Salesperson probably didn't know any better. Was likely looking out for your best interests, oblivious to his/her level of mis-information.
You'd probably get the same sort of 'help' at Walmart or any other mass market retailer.

 

[AlanF]

The front element of the 50/1.8 is set well back from the front of the mount and is well protected without the need for a filter. I do protect expensive lenses that have the front element flush with the mount, but that is just a personal foible. There is absolutely no need for a uv filter with the 50mm.

Just to make it clear: If you want a filter to protect the front element of a lens, it doesn't have to be an UV filter. A clear filter works just fine. UV filters are sometimes easier to find, that's why they are also used for lenses on digital cameras.
The protection mentioned here is protection from mechanical impact and/or moisture. There is no need to protect lens or sensor from UV light. For a $120 dollar lens it is in my opinion overkill.
UV protection for your skin however is recommended

Agree on all accounts. I bought a Marumi clear filter for my Tamron 150-600 a couple of weeks ago as I was intending to use the lens occasionally without its lens hood in crowded areas and because of reports in another thread that the front element did not look sealed. I am pretty impressed with it. It doesn't appear to have have affected picture quality, and I dropped it onto concrete and it survived without even a mark on the ring!

 

[traingineer]

You don't need a UV filter for a lens like that, and I would be careful of buying from Best Buy. They usually. just spew out some marketing and try to make you buy the most expensive item or an overkill item.

 

[wako]

Just putting it out there...


I use to work at BestBuy (~10 years ago though) and sales were NOT paid on commission. So if you buy something cheap or expensive it didnt make any difference. The sales people were paid hourly and only thing that counted against our scorecard (AKA: if we will get hours next week) are the service plans.


So based on that, I pretty sure you just had a really dumb salesperson. Go back to the store and just buy it. Do him a favor and tell him how horribly wrong he is. More than likely hes just some stupid teenager.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The front element of the 50/1.8 is set well back from the front of the mount and is well protected without the need for a filter. I do protect expensive lenses that have the front element flush with the mount, but that is just a personal foible. There is absolutely no need for a uv filter with the 50mm.

+1

In fact, putting a filter on the 50 1.8 causes flare unless you are using a hood (not needed otherwise because the front element is set back.
The 50 is my only lens without a protective filter.

 

[TheJock]

Speaking from my personal experience with this lens, make sure the store honours returns as the lens has a well-documented problem with the focus jumping back and forth (skipping), my first variant was returned 3 months after purchase and swapped like for like. Additionally, UV filters can cause glare, I noticed it on a lot of my images from the last 24 hour race, it looked like the illuminated numbers on the side of the cars had a double upside down image diagonally across the frame, so I removed it altogether. Other than these issues the lens offers brilliant images for the price, I would thoroughly recommend you buy it.........before the wife spends your gift card wonga on gardening items……which will cause YOU more work at home ;D

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I bought a Marumi clear filter ...

Good to read about other people having good experiences with Marumi filters. I am very impressed with the quality and have replaced all my filters (protective and others) with Marumi's

There are times when I feel I am the only one buying Marumi filters. :-\

 

[dgatwood]

In fact, putting a filter on the 50 1.8 causes flare unless you are using a hood (not needed otherwise because the front element is set back.

I'm not sure why it would cause flare on that lens any more than it does on any other, unless you got a cheap filter that wasn't multicoated (or not multicoated very well).

 

[sagittariansrock]

In fact, putting a filter on the 50 1.8 causes flare unless you are using a hood (not needed otherwise because the front element is set back.

I'm not sure why it would cause flare on that lens any more than it does on any other, unless you got a cheap filter that wasn't multicoated (or not multicoated very well).

Now that you mention it, I think I tried a Tiffen, and then dropped the idea. This was before I started investing in B+Ws.
But this brings to mind a more fundamental question:
What causes a flare? If it is simply bright light incident on the front element at an angle, then you are right- all lenses will be almost equally prone to flare when an uncoated filter is used. On the other hand, if it is bright light that is incident, but doesn't pass through to the sensor then any lens that has a lot of peripheral, redundant front element will be more susceptible (in this case the 50mm, because it will have a larger front element, in this case the filter, than passes through to the sensor).
It is not very eloquently described without illustration, I am afraid. But this might help: few days ago Neuro posted that the 24-70 II's hood isn't effective at any FL other than the widest, unlike the 24-70 I, whose hood-to-front element distance changed with the FL. I asked myself why, if the front element is equally susceptible to flare whatever the effective FL might be (the same question you are asking me)? Then I thought the peripheral rays aren't passing on to the sensor when the lens is zoomed in, so maybe it is this peripheral rays that causes the flare. Having a deeper hood cuts down these peripheral rays and prevents flare.
That brings us to the other question- are hoods of telephoto lenses deeper because they can have them (i.e., the angle of view is narrower allowing a deeper hood) or because they need the extra depth?
Do you know which one is the case? Maybe the experts can enlighten us?