Filters - UV, ect... Which to buy?

[mag1]

I'm looking to buy a new filter for my wife's sigma 70-300 lens. (58mm) Somehow her lens got dropped and the one she had busted, lens is ok. Are there difference's in them? price is an issue, but are the $12.00 kits on e-bay ok, or what should you spend, Which brands, ect..... Thanks for any input.

[Paradox]

Proof that filters are a great thing to put on your lens. ;)

Always go for the more expensive filters - a lens is only as good as the worst glass attached to it. If you get a cheap filter, your images will drop in quality. Go for a multi coated glass one, Hoya and B&W seem to be popular. It costs more now, but the pictures will be better for the investment.

[TheWengler]

I don't know if I would put anything that costs $12 on my lens. Are you just talking about UV filters? I believe the front element rotates on that lens which means you need an incredibly patient person to use a polarizer. Hoya is the brand you should look at. The lens isn't all that expensive so I'm not sure it's entirely worth it to protect it with a UV filter. However, if it's been saved once by the filter and there's a high chance it'll happen again then maybe it'll be worth your money. The concern with UV filters (at least for digital cameras) is that they might reduce the quality of the image (especially if it's cheap) without any real benefit, aside from protection. The only time I'd use one is if it was protecting an expensive lens.

[mag1]

Thanks for the input. I ordered a Hoya.

[SpecialK]

The best filter/no filter thread I've come across:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27381

The Sigma 70-300 front element does not rotate. Oddly enough, it's the only lens I have a filter on, for no real reason - a hang over from the film days, I guess.

At the beach or in a dusty windy area is the only time I would normally consider using a "protection filter", and I'd probably use the S3 IS instead...

[Forced Perfect]

I had a pricey Hoya on my S2 and they really are a pain to clean.

I (and this guy) totally recommend B+W MRC filters. They're of very high quality, clean easily (for those of us who make the odd mistake :)) and I've never had a photo on my 70-200mm that I've gone "I should take the filter off for this shot..."

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B+W-UV-Filter.aspx

[crum]

Got a Hoya HMC UV(N) with my DX18-135 lens. wat exactly does it do? the packaging shows a pick with and without filter shot, but it looks slightly zoom, is that correct or it is just a basic uv filter? from looking at the hoya site, there is a filter for eclipse shots, is that filter also necessary for sunrise/set shots or would the one i got be suffice?

[krzkrzkrz]

Never used a Hoya filter before. I currently have B&W UV filters on my 70-200/2.8 and 100/2.8. The UV filters are mainly used to protect the front element of the lens from any kind of damage.

No filters on my kit and 50/1.8 lens.

I also own a B&W CPL filter for sunny-bright days.

In addition, you may also want to consider having a lens hood over a filter if protection is the main concern. Just my .02 cents

[crum]

No filters on my kit and 50/1.8 lens.

is it not always necessary to have a filter?


I also own a B&W CPL filter for sunny-bright days.

is a polarizing filter neccessary in bright sunlight or can the UV i got do the trick? how does the CPl fuunction different to the UV? do i need special tinted filters to take eclipse for example?


In addition, you may also want to consider having a lens hood over a filter if protection is the main concern. Just my .02 cents

wat does the hood protect against? can't it cause vignetting?

[D Thompson]

is it not always necessary to have a filter?

No, in fact there are several that think UV's are totally unnecessary. I don't use them on any of my lenses including my Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. There are uses for a CPL and ND filters tho.


is a polarizing filter neccessary in bright sunlight or can the UV i got do the trick? how does the CPl fuunction different to the UV? do i need special tinted filters to take eclipse for example?

A polarizer and a UV are two very different animals. IMO a UV is useless, although some use it as a lens protector. A polarizer will eliminate glare/reflections on windows/water/etc. and deepen sky color and can be useful.


wat does the hood protect against? can't it cause vignetting?

Now you are talking something useful and that is on all of my lenses. I use the hood to help protect my lenses without any degradation of image quality. Yes, there are those that say a good UV doesn't degrade. It's a personal choice and I choose not to put a <$100 piece of glass on a $1100 lens. Just my thinking, but a hood offers more protection if you drop a camera/lens than a UV anyway. A hood also helps to block glare when shooting at angles to the sun to prevent lens flare. Yes, it can cause vignetting if the wrong hood is used.

There are several threads about UV filter/no filter use and as many argue one way as the other. CPL's and ND's have specific uses. It is up to you to decide and good luck in your decision.