Get a Skylight UV filter
I already posted this in another Forum - but thought I should share this here too: -
OK - here's a seasoned photographer who's casually dabbled for more years than he'd like to admit to.
However - no one is immune to overlooking basics sometimes!.
After I got my initial dSLR settup just over a year ago - I found a minute mark on my Sigma 17 - 70
Horrified I remembered I hadn't purchased a protective UV filter.
Fortunately there is no visible effect and the mark is tiny.
So both the 17 - 70 & the 70 - 300 were duly fitted with UV filters.
I always used UV filters or skylight filters on my lenses in my fSLR days - so why did I forget?...
Now - I just purchased an inbetween lens which could turn out to be used more than I thought it would be
the 28 - 200, which I found has been discontinued - I got the Sigma so at least I have a matching set (not that it really matters).
Taking some comparison shots at the same focal lenths I noticed outside that the 28 - 200 had a slightly, almost soft, haze to the fine detail - I figured it was just not quite as sharp as the 17 - 70 (which it probably isn't). Then it dawned on my tiny old brain cell - I haven't got a UV filter on it!!!!
How stupid can I be and still be alive??
Buy a filter to protect your lens - make it a good one - not a cheapo one - they are more likely to cause reflections off the digital sensor. I am very pleased with the Sigma DG one I got (to match the lens) other makes, like Hoya, for example are good too.
BTW - shop around - prices for the same thing vary quite a lot!!
I noticed in my 35mm days that a good SMC UV filter would sharpen a picture somewhat.
I echo what Geoff says - use a good one. I used to use Hoya. Lots of people sniffed at Hoya saying B&W was better. Quite honestly I don't think it really matters as long as the filter isn't a cheapie (store brand or off brand).
As an example of a bad filter, I bought a Jessops uncoated 1A filter and that worked better as a light diffuser than as anything else.
Spot on Rhys!
Whilst trying to find a good price - I casually glanced at a cheap Jessops one - and thought [I]'Nahh!'[/] - Don't misunderstand - Jessops are great at times.
One reputable site had my Sigma DG at £34.99 - there are some much more expensive prices around - Some Nikon filters at as much as £50= - then I stumbled on one site selling my DG (72mm) at £99=...can't top that yet. The £34.99 one was OK and with £4.99 P&P there's not much change from £40=...So you can see why I was Tempted by some cheaper ones at £15= to £25= !! However, spending a little more time I found Bristol Cameras did my Sigma UV DG 72mm for: -
Regions (Shipping to Surrey, United Kingdom ): £2.50
again - I can't emphasise enough - shop around, the first site is often a good one - but not everything is cheapest at one place.
But what about the claim that some make: adding a UV filter softens the focus of your lens? I too, always keep some type of filter on my lenses. But I do wonder if there is any truth the the claim that some make. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Have a good day.
Low quality filter act as diffusers. Sad but true!
Originally Posted by mjsneddon
Use a low quality filter and you will see a degradation of photo quality.
Use a high quality filter and you will struggle to see any degradation - and sometimes you may even find a bit of an improvement - like when it filters out a little haze to reveal some fine detail.
There have been several threads on this already. You'll hear arguments for both sides. Personally I don't believe in them. I'll just stick to my lens hoods.
Yep, a lot of posts on this subject, you are not going to change anyone's mind on this. Naked here, my hood does fine protecting my lenses.
Ha Ha - I see this is a real jar of worms here, but I am still sticking to my opinion - but respect those who feel different. The lens hood, for me, doesn't cut it - it's for a different purpose - besides - if I use fill in flash and a bit of zoom - the lens hood casts a shadow.
Originally Posted by SpecialK
I have used UV or Skylight filters for years and never had anything negative to report from using them - only posative