Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    47

    Best UV Filter for 18-200mm

    Hi Guys.. Quick Question.. What is the best UV filter to use for 18-200mm vr... I mainly want to use the filter to protect the lense in case i accidently drop it or somethin'.. but the other main reason i want to get a good filter is picture quality.. i want to get a filter that will upgrade the picture quality not degrade it... I know you guys are experts.. and your suggestions will weigh heavily on my decision.. and I really appreciate..
    http://www.flickr.com/disguyla
    D50/ NIKKOR 50MM 1.8D/ Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro HSM/ NIKKOR 18-200MM F3.5-5.6 VR/ SB600..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Forget the protection idea.
    If you drop or hit the lens hard enough to damage the filter most likely you will damage the lens as well anyway.
    I'm not a UV filter person so i will let other argue the merits or otherwise of fitting one.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    I'm not really sure how it would upgrade picture quality. The lens has the quality it left the factory with, you can only make it worse. That said, I have heard stories of UV filters saving lenses but I think a lot of luck is involved. B+W and Hoya are popular.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    I believe a UV filter can improve the quality by filtering out ultraviolet rays, which affect the sensor. Not a big enough effect to make them quite necessary though, obviously.
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWengler View Post
    I'm not really sure how it would upgrade picture quality. The lens has the quality it left the factory with, you can only make it worse. That said, I have heard stories of UV filters saving lenses but I think a lot of luck is involved. B+W and Hoya are popular.
    My Hoya Circular Polarizer potentially saved my 12-24/4 in a small 1 foot drop. The lens came out without a scratch, the polarizer was toast. Cracked the glass pretty good, but it didnt shatter, so thats good for the lens.

    The bad part is that the Filter is $150 + shipping.

    Farewell Good Buddy!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    same story here vtec. i had my CPL on my 70-200VR at the time. $150 is a heck of alot better than $2000.

    hvstar.net are awesome filter sellers and i recommend B+W filters.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    Filters usually degrade quality as many have noted due to their propensity to cause reflections, ghosting, and flare... it's just a question of how much. It's even worse when you have a bulbous front element like many wide angles.

    If you're going to use a filter, get a good multi-coated one like B+W MRC. The MRC coating is supposedly more durable than Hoya's S-HMC multi-coat. Uncoated and single-coated filters are more prone to cause reflections, ghosting, and flare.

    hvstar.net looks a little sketchy to me. According to B+W, they do not make "alloy" filters, only brass.

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    I think that UV is kinda a farce now days. I believe sensors have their OWN filters on them now. That said, I bought one and never use it anymore. If I was going to be shooting where there was a ton of danger around - flying rocks, etc. then I would put it on. But even a $100+ filter does not add anything to the photos. It can only introduce other issues as mentioned by others.

    That all said people that aren't familiar with the 18-200mm need to realize that protecting this lens is a valid argument for certain situations - especially since the front element is RIGHT on the front of the lens. Without using the large lenshood, the front element is quite exposed - which is why I originally did purchase a UV filter.
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,887
    I used to swear by a UV filter. However, I never take my polarisor off. Even in cloudy weather. Indoors shots fine, i take it off. Therefore I have a UV filter I never use. If you have a UV filter then you are probably not using a polarisor (as that would do the protecting anyway). If you have both, then vignetting can be a problem.

    i would just use a lens hood (if you dont use a polarisor) OR the polarisor (as using a polarisor AND a hood can be very fidely (to rotate the filter)
    Nikon D700
    Sigma 70-200 F2.8
    Sigma 85mm F1.4
    Sigma 15-30 F3.5 - 4.5



    http://www.philipduartephotography.com

    "It's better to be hurt by the truth than comforted by a lie"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    I don't mind filters at all. I have seen no loss of detail, or extra flaring/ghosting in any of my shots with them on. Wait, I take that back. Only on my 12-24/4 have I seen the slightest increase in CA with a UV filter on. But that lens is prone to some CA, and I know to shoot in RAW with that lens to correct the CA issues. Other that that one thing, I haven't noticed any other issues with filters. My 70-200 doesn't flare any more with a filter on that it does with a filter off. And that lens flares a lot, even without a filter.

    I think a quality filter will not show any issues that many talk about on here. Some people don't mind them, others despise them. I just shoot the picture and don't think about it.

    Edit: The cheapest place I have found for Hoya filters is here:

    http://stores.ebay.com/Spotlight-Photo

    I have bought filters from this place in the past and they always come to my door in a matter of a couple days. Great seller, and great prices, and they are in the USA, not Hong Kong.
    Last edited by VTEC_EATER; 11-15-2007 at 07:30 AM.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •