UV Filter

[Deleted member 11679]

Ok, I have heard a lot about people saying you 'need' a UV filter for lenses that are being used outside for the majority of their time/being used where the sun can really get them.

First off, is there a general opinion that having a UV filter on a lens will protect this and is in fact necessay?

Secondly, If I were to get a filter for my 70-200 F/4 L, which has a filter size of 67mm, I have a step down ring to make a filter size of 62mm work on this lens - which apparently makes it cheaper but is it also worth it? (I was given the step down ring by the guy I bought the lens off.)

Thirdly, what type or brand of filter is recommended? Obviously it needs a UV one, which is the one I am looking at...but I am struggling to find any Canon ones or do they not produce them? Is Hoya good?

So many questions! A little clarity to the situation would be muchos appreciated.

Tom

 

[glitch]

Need? No.

Useful? Yes.

There's not really a massive amount of advantage in using a UV filter on the front of your lens, but it's good to know that the front element is protected and in certain instances you'll need to use one to make the lens weatherproof - some Canon L lenses being a good example of this.

The step-down ring will cause vignetting on the lens so you'll need to go for a dedicated 67mm filter and if you've got a nice bit of L glass then you really want the best UV filter you can get your hands on - providing you do actually want one - and that would be Hoya's Super HMC Pro-1 range.

Well, that's my two-penneth worth, you'll probably hear a lot more from the assorted pro-UV and non-UV bods on here in due course!

 

[neverender]

As has been said above, they're not exactly necessary but I for one would far rather replace a scratched filter than a scratched front element.

That said, I tend to keep a polariser on my lenses rather than UV. I find them far more useful generally, especially as I do a fair amount of landscape/urban work (depending where abouts in the country I am). It can be a bit of a pain losing 1stop or so, but digital means its easily sorted with a quick ISO fix.

Horses for courses really.

 

[Deleted member 11679]

It can be a bit of a pain losing 1stop or so, but digital means its easily sorted with a quick ISO fix.

Does that apply to every filter I attach? I lose 1 stop automatically?

 

[glitch]

Only filters like Polarisers or ND filters that cut down on the light coming into the lens. Something like a UV filter won't affect the light transmission by anything near a stop.

I hear what neverender is saying, but I'd advise against keeping a Polariser on the front of your lens at all times. Just get yourself a quality UV filter and leave the Polariser for later down the line. There's less of a step between no filter and a UV than no filter and a Polariser.

Plus if you have multiple lenses then a UV filter on each is the best bet for safety and a transferable Polariser - a-la Cokin - would give you the most flexibility for the long-term.

 

[nolimit]

@glitch

I was just looking at your website, it is really nice.

I love all the music it really goes well with the photo album.

Can you tell me who the artists are for these tracks:

La Chica
Shifting Sands
Smooth


I really need it for my cd-rom project for my coursework.

 

[glitch]

Thanks, nolimit.

It's a right mess at the moment, been trying to teach myself HTML so I can build a proper site but not been getting very far! Complete slackness on my part though.

RE the music, I'll email you the files if you'd like - they're only short loops. Email is in trust.

 

[neverender]

I hear what neverender is saying, but I'd advise against keeping a Polariser on the front of your lens at all times. Just get yourself a quality UV filter and leave the Polariser for later down the line. There's less of a step between no filter and a UV than no filter and a Polariser.

Plus if you have multiple lenses then a UV filter on each is the best bet for safety and a transferable Polariser - a-la Cokin - would give you the most flexibility for the long-term.

Wholly agree there.
UV filters are definitely the place to start. I dont actually have a polariser on each on my lenses; I have one polariser and one UV filter which I interchange between my two 52mm mount lenses (at some point Ill get another UV filter for these too), and a 72mm mount polariser for my 28-135.

 

[hoodmeister]

warning, controversy ahead!.
There are pros and cons to using UV filters - I'm not saying people should, shouldn't use UV filters, but I do think people should realise the downside as well as the up. this article makes for good reading.

 

[Adex]

warning, controversy ahead!.
There are pros and cons to using UV filters - I'm not saying people should, shouldn't use UV filters, but I do think people should realise the downside as well as the up. this article makes for good reading.

That was quite an interesting read indeed
I`m sure many will disagree with those comments but in all honesty, he makes some very valid points.

 

[Deleted member 11679]

warning, controversy ahead!.
There are pros and cons to using UV filters - I'm not saying people should, shouldn't use UV filters, but I do think people should realise the downside as well as the up. this article makes for good reading.

Very interesting reading. I may hang tight for now, if I go on holiday to a very sunny country for instance then I will definately get one, however in the UK the odd sunny day I cannot see doing loads of harm. I also think I will be a regular user of that lens hood that comes with it as well.

Tom

 

[Richard T]

Very interesting reading. I may hang tight for now, if I go on holiday to a very sunny country for instance then I will definately get one, however in the UK the odd sunny day I cannot see doing loads of harm. I also think I will be a regular user of that lens hood that comes with it as well.

Tom

nice read

Spose the question to ask is ' has anyone here been saved by a filter?'
I must admit to having a uv filter on my IS lens