UV filters (any difference?)

[Albi86]

There's a very nice article on Lenstip whose conclusion is that HOYA filters are the best, both overall and in terms of value for money (depends on the model you buy).

I generally use the HMC. Sometimes Amazon has the Pro1 on offer and in that case I buy those.

No problem with lens caps, but I never tried stacking them.

 

[Loswr]

I always use filters

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

Or maybe we're just clumsy...

Just the other day I was out taking some snapshots with my 1D X and EF 600mm f/4L IS II and I didn't have a UV filter on the front of the lens.

In fact, here's the snapshot to prove it!

 

[Loswr]

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

Do keep in mind that one of the lenses the OP mentions is the 17-40mm f/4L, and that is a lens that requires a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing for the lens.

There's a very nice article on Lenstip whose conclusion is that HOYA filters are the best, both overall and in terms of value for money (depends on the model you buy).

No problem with lens caps, but I never tried stacking them.

Right - but you have to look at the test data in the context of the utility of a UV filter on a dSLR. The Hoya filters scored better than the B+W because they more effectively block UV light (defined as 200-390nm). But modern dSLRs aren't sensitive to UV light, so that criterion is pretty much irrelevant in terms of current utility. The B+W filters actually score better (slightly) than the Hoya filters in terms of visible light transmission (which LensTip defines as 390-750nm, although the standard definition is 400-700nm). But the difference is only ~1%, which is practically irrelevant.

So, based on the LensTip test data, for a dSLR there's no optical difference between the B+W MRC and the high end Hoya filters. Personally, I find the MRC (and Nano) coatings very easy to clean, similar to the Hoya HD coating. The standard Hoya coatings are reportedly harder to clean. Also, the brass mount rings on the B+W filters are less prone to thermal expansion than the aluminum rings on most other filters, meaning it's less likely the B+W's will get stuck if stacked (but it can still happen, which is why having a set of $5 filter wrenches with you is a good idea!).

 

[Albi86]

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

Do keep in mind that one of the lenses the OP mentions is the 17-40mm f/4L, and that is a lens that requires a front filter to complete the weather/dust sealing for the lens.

There's a very nice article on Lenstip whose conclusion is that HOYA filters are the best, both overall and in terms of value for money (depends on the model you buy).

No problem with lens caps, but I never tried stacking them.

Right - but you have to look at the test data in the context of the utility of a UV filter on a dSLR. The Hoya filters scored better than the B+W because they more effectively block UV light (defined as 200-390nm). But modern dSLRs aren't sensitive to UV light, so that criterion is pretty much irrelevant in terms of current utility. The B+W filters actually score better (slightly) than the Hoya filters in terms of visible light transmission (which LensTip defines as 390-750nm, although the standard definition is 400-700nm). But the difference is only ~1%, which is practically irrelevant.

So, based on the LensTip test data, for a dSLR there's no optical difference between the B+W MRC and the high end Hoya filters. Personally, I find the MRC (and Nano) coatings very easy to clean, similar to the Hoya HD coating. The standard Hoya coatings are reportedly harder to clean. Also, the brass mount rings on the B+W filters are less prone to thermal expansion than the aluminum rings on most other filters, meaning it's less likely the B+W's will get stuck if stacked (but it can still happen, which is why having a set of $5 filter wrenches with you is a good idea!).

All very true, but I don't know how it is where you live, but here in EU B+W XS filters are more than twice as expensive as the already-quite-good Hoya HMC and around a +30% compared to the Hoya Pro1. IMHO they're not a convenient purchase.

For what it's worth, I never had a problem cleaning them. I actually find myself doing it very often by just breathing on them and brushing the surface delicately with my t-shirt.

 

[Kristofgss]

I haven't seen anything which an UV filter improves optically, but I use them on all my lenses to have the weather sealing and to prevent dirt/fingers/smudges from affecting the lens itself. I like the HMC-type filters, the multi-coating does help to minimise reflections. Having said that, whenever I tried to use the 70-200 with filter in complete darkness to take pictures of anything lighted by a candle, the light of the candle would reflect from the sensor back to the front glass and create a ghost image, so when doing things in complete darkness, I now take them off first.
I do wonder about the front filters who are really cheap, are they strong? i.e. would these shatter quickly under impact and thus still damage the lens front glass?

 

[RLPhoto]

I always use filters

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

Or maybe we're just clumsy...

Just the other day I was out taking some snapshots with my 1D X and EF 600mm f/4L IS II and I didn't have a UV filter on the front of the lens.

In fact, here's the snapshot to prove it!

If they made them for Big Tele's, I'd probably buy one to be honest. :-X

 

[RJB]

Usually half the gear I shoot with is on loan from an agency and the other half is insured. However, I always use filters.

Why?

Because if I'm out in the bush, on an embed or just somewhere generally a bit dusty/salty/sandy, a filter getting caked, scratched or cracked isn't really an issue. Getting the front end of a lens in such a state is. I'm generally out in areas where you can't just pick up a new 24-70 and travelling light(ish) means no back-up in the same focal range.

I fully agree that guys shooting studio probably won't use protective filters, but many others like the security that a filter offers. My point is that breaking down the whole filter/no filter argument into non pro/pro isn't really valid; pros have the same range of interests and areas of expertise as non-pros, and their gear tends to reflect the type of shooting they specialise in.

P.s. I'm with Neuro on the recommendation, I use the XS-PROs - they keep the vignetting down nicely, and because they're brass, even if you ding the front of the lens and bend the filter thread you can generally get them off again if you need to.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

There's a very nice article on Lenstip whose conclusion is that HOYA filters are the best, both overall and in terms of value for money (depends on the model you buy).

I generally use the HMC. Sometimes Amazon has the Pro1 on offer and in that case I buy those.

No problem with lens caps, but I never tried stacking them.

I don't know which are the "best" ... but a few years ago, I did have a couple of Hoya filters on my EF 17-85 lens and the 50-500 lens) I really liked them ... I see no problem with Hoya ... its just that I personally like B+W ... maybe because I have a lot of trust and respect for made in Germany products ... or maybe, since I cannot afford the more fancier German made products like Leica, BMW etc I kinda feel happy that I can at least afford some German products ;D ... either way I don't care, I really like the B+W XS-Pro filters and I'm sticking with them, especially bcoz they are so slim and yet you can put a lens cap on them.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Whether you decide to use a filter or not, if protection is your goal, you'd be a fool to not use a lens hood.

A hood actually improves image quality, while even the best filters degrade image quality (though, granted, imperceptibly so with the high quality ones). Except for those few lenses where a filter is required to complete environmental sealing, a filter only protects against the types of hazards that come in situations where you yourself should be wearing eye protection -- such as gravel kicked up at a rodeo. A hood, on the other hand, protects against all the common real-world types of hazards photographers face, including impact and fingerprints. More to the point, an impact that would damage a front element will damage the filter in a way that will often transmit the damage on to the lens, such as by jamming the filter threads or scratching the front element with the broken filter. The hood will actually protect the lens against those types of damage. And quality filters generally cost about as much as repairing a lens with a damaged front element.

For most photographers in most situations, the hood provides all the protection one needs. For many (not most) photographers in many (not most) situations, a filter will degrade image quality. For only a few photographers in only a few situations will a filter provide protection not offered by a lens hood.

The key is understanding the actual type of photography you do and, from that, knowing if adding a filter to your hood (which you should always use) will offer physical protection worth the degradation of image quality. Or, if you regularly shoot in environments in which a filter is actually prudent, you should be able to recognize situations where the filter is going to significantly degrade image quality and be able to make the decision to remove the filter for that shot.

(Of course, this all applies only to clear / UV / protection filters. Polarizers, neutral density filters, and other filters for effects are irrelevant to the discussion. And, of course, there are all sorts of other odd exceptions, such as lenses like the 50 compact macro which is its own hood, the fisheye lenses and their bulbous front elements, photojournalists who should be getting combat pay, and the like.)

Cheers,

b&

 

[wsheldon]

The key is understanding the actual type of photography you do and, from that, knowing if adding a filter to your hood (which you should always use) will offer physical protection worth the degradation of image quality. Or, if you regularly shoot in environments in which a filter is actually prudent, you should be able to recognize situations where the filter is going to significantly degrade image quality and be able to make the decision to remove the filter for that shot.

+1

I do use UV filters when shooting around water/sand (and on my 17-40L), but always use hoods on all my lenses for the reasons TrumpetPower states.

Interesting article and discussion at LenRentals.com on this topic as well (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters). Filter quality does matter, particularly if you need to stack.

 

[LewisShermer]

I thought Kai from digital rev had already proven that UV filters were useless on dSLRs apart from protecting them when he was smashing it against a tree??? have a look for that video.

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

 

[Studio1930]

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer? I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

 

[RLPhoto]

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer? I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

+1

I was thinking the same thing, at the same time.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Proven to make your images softer

What utter rubbish! ... with a good quality filter on my lens there has never been any issue with images being "softer".

 

[Rienzphotoz]

For only a few photographers in only a few situations will a filter provide protection not offered by a lens hood.

While I agree with your point of view about the kind of protection a lens hood offers, I disagree with your above statement ... a clear/UV filter offers protection which a lens hood cannot offer at anytime you are outdoors. A lens hood cannot stop dust, dirt, grime, oil, grease, finger prints, water etc falling on the lens front element (any of those situations are likely to occur more often than the lens front element getting banged up on another object). Of course the ideal protection is having a filter and a lens hood on the lens.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

A lens hood cannot stop dust, dirt, grime, oil, grease, finger prints, water etc falling on the lens front element

Actually, a lens hood is superlative at stopping most of those things. Better than a filter, in fact.

Take fingerprints, the most common. Fingerprints obviously happen when your finger comes in contact with the front lens element. When the front lens element is the forwardmost part of the camera, it's quite natural to touch it in all sorts of circumstances. But, with a hood, you've now got to actively stick your finger past the hood and reach in to touch the front element. Short of curling your fingers around the hood or pointing and sticking your finger straight down the front, there's no way to get a fingerprint on a hooded lens.

Basically, without a hood, touching the front of the lens is almost natural. But, with a hood, it takes active intent or extreme carelessness on the part of the photographer to touch the front element.

Now, let's examine the next most common situation: water droplets in rain. Unless it's a driving rain in a strong wind, or unless the camera is pointed up, no rain is going to fall on a hooded lens.

Oil and grease are both only going to happen from physical contact, which the hood will prevent even better than it'll prevent fingerprints. Casually walk around an auto mechanic's shop letting your camera bang into every oily, greasy, grimy surface, and, if you've got a hood on, you'll have to actively aim the camera in order to get anything to touch the lens.

That basically leaves fine blowing dust and water spray from waves or the like, both of which are textbook cases for where filters are not only a good idea but required in a small handful of lenses to complete the weather sealing. But few photographers do much shooting in those kinds of environments...which takes me back to my original statement that most photographers most of the time don't need a filter to protect the lens, but all photographers concerned about protecting the lens should be using a hood.

Basically, unless you shoot in certain unusual situations, if you use a hood, the only thing you'll ever have to do to clean your lens is use a rocket blower once in a blue moon, and maybe supplement that with a soft brush. Leave off the hood, and prepare yourself to get on good terms with lens pens, pec pads, and Eclipse -- whether or not you use a filter.

If nothing else, look at the hood as the best way to protect your $150 filter from fingerprints and scratches and what-not.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Loswr]

Take fingerprints, the most common. Fingerprints obviously happen when your finger comes in contact with the front lens element. When the front lens element is the forwardmost part of the camera, it's quite natural to touch it in all sorts of circumstances. But, with a hood, you've now got to actively stick your finger past the hood and reach in to touch the front element. Short of curling your fingers around the hood or pointing and sticking your finger straight down the front, there's no way to get a fingerprint on a hooded lens.

Basically, without a hood, touching the front of the lens is almost natural. But, with a hood, it takes active intent or extreme carelessness on the part of the photographer to touch the front element.

Now, let's examine the next most common situation: water droplets in rain. Unless it's a driving rain in a strong wind, or unless the camera is pointed up, no rain is going to fall on a hooded lens.

Oil and grease are both only going to happen from physical contact, which the hood will prevent even better than it'll prevent fingerprints. Casually walk around an auto mechanic's shop letting your camera bang into every oily, greasy, grimy surface, and, if you've got a hood on, you'll have to actively aim the camera in order to get anything to touch the lens.

That makes sense for some lenses. Have you seen the hood for the 16-35L, TS-E 24L, etc.? Not a whole lot of protection there...

 

[TrumpetPower!]

That makes sense for some lenses. Have you seen the hood for the 16-35L, TS-E 24L, etc.? Not a whole lot of protection there...

I'm actually shooting right this very moment with the 24.

I'll agree that there's not a huge amount of protection. However, I'd also argue that it's more than enough to keep a photographer from accidentally touching the front element, especially since this is a lens that'll rarely be used off a tripod.

The 16-35, even when hooded, I can see being prone to the fingerprints of curious children. And I could see it being less effective for protecting the lens if you're wildly and randomly swinging it around at the end of the strap. But, obviously, the answer is either to supplement the hood with a filter if you're going to be handing the camera to curious children or randomly swinging it around at the end of the strap...or to keep your equipment out of the hands of children and to pay a bit more attention to how you're handling it.

But both hoods will protect the lens against damage from being dropped far more than any filter ever would.

Of course, the ultimate example of a worse-than-useless hood would be the one that comes with the 8-15. Of course, that lens only takes rear filters, so it's not like you have much choice but to be careful. Personally, I'm just treating the hood of that lens as an extension of the lens cap, and may well tape the two together.

But, still. 99 44/100% of lenses are adequately protected against most likely causes of damage by using a hood. One should be aware of the exceptions, yes, but one also shouldn't let perfection terrorize the good. And, save for the hood of the 8-15, a hood is never going to degrade image quality and will almost always improve it, often significantly so.

Really, the default position should overwhelmingly be, "Use a hood." Filters can be useful, and one should know when they are. But filters are the exception; hoods are the rule.

Cheers,

b&

 

[LewisShermer]

Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.

Noticeably softer? I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/uv-filter-vs-no-uv/OTMwNA_A_A

6:30 in.

also stated in this is the earlier made point that modern chips don't pick up uv rays anyway.

proof: conclusive 8)

 

[tcmatthews]

I really do not see the lens hood as much protection. That being said I have broken two filters and both time there was a lens hood attached. The filters did there job and protected the front element of the lens. The first one I broke when I slipped retrieving my hat from some water. I have learn before I do something like that put the camera down. But my now hat was floating away at 5 MPH. The Lens hood broke into 3 peaces and left a nasty crack on the UV filter.

The second time my tripod was bumped dropping my camera and 70-200LF4 onto the pavement. The Lens hood bounced right off and when it bounced off a small rock on the front element I think my hart stopped a beat. The Lens filter was cracked but not broken all they way through. Because I was in AZ in lava fields everyday I ran out and bought the only filter I could find at 9pm. I learned then that Tiffen filters I started out with are not all that bad. Compared to an image obstruction device Sunpack filter. I spent the rest of the trip swapping off the Sunpack which was truly only for protection from stray dust.

So yes use a filter unless the lens hood is permanently attached. As for clear or UV, most lens have some UV coatings already and there is a UV filter on the sensor.

As for the brand I would by the best you could find. B&W or high end Hoya. I have a few Tiffen but I am replacing them do to flare.