Which UV filter size for Nikon D3100?

sharingan_sasuk · 8 Feb 2011 at 21:39

Hey guys, just picked up my first ever Digital SLR from Jessops, a Nikon D3100! I've already ordered some Sandisk Ultra SDHC cards and I'll get a bag soon, probably a Lowepro one? The AW 160 or something. I'm going to Vietnam for 3 months in a few weeks so I wanted to be prepared.

However one thing I'm still not sure about is the UV filter size. Some Google results say 58mm, others say 52mm. Jessops sell a bundle with the camera that includes a 52mm one, so I assume that's the correct size? There's a B+W one for about £12 I'm looking at, but any suggestions are more than welcome. I'm getting it mainly for the protection, but it should have course make no different to my pictures as well!

manjuice · 8 Feb 2011 at 21:40

Filter size depends on the lens you have.

Talon · 8 Feb 2011 at 21:42

As above, post the lens and someone will fill you in.

sharingan_sasuk · 8 Feb 2011 at 21:43

On the lens, it says Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR.

Talon · 8 Feb 2011 at 21:45

52mm I think but I don't use my kit lens so I have never bought one for it.

If you have a look at the end of the lens you'll see a screw thread, thats the filter attachment. It the diameter of that that governs the filter size you need to buy.

prUnE · 8 Feb 2011 at 22:11

If you look on the side of the lens there should be a couple of digits after this symbol ∅; that's your lens diameter/filter size.

sharingan_sasuk · 8 Feb 2011 at 22:14

Ah yes of course. Dunno how I failed to see that lol. Many thanks!

Snapshot · 9 Feb 2011 at 07:31

If you want it to make no difference to your pics then you need to spend a lot more than £12. I use the Hoya Pro1 Digital range, either UV or just
'protector'. Not cheap, especially the larger sizes, but they have good multi-coating so don't take much away from the results. A cheap single-coated filter is worse than useless.

D.P. · 9 Feb 2011 at 07:51

sharingan_sasuk said:
On the lens, it says Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR.

I wouldn't put a UV filter on this lens.

There is a time and a place for a UV filter but the kit lens is not a lens that deserves a UV filter.

With a UV filter you need to buy a good branded filter with multi coating and a solid frame that what jump threads on the lens.
The other thing is it is pointless gettign a UV filter for filtering UV as the sensor just aren't sensitive to UV.

So I pressume you want a UV filter for protection, if yo then look at buying a protection filter.

AtticusFinch · 9 Feb 2011 at 11:10

Or just always leave the hood on and you don't need a filter for protection at all - the age debate.

Tooks · 10 Feb 2011 at 10:50

As above, I really wouldn't bother with a filter for protection at all.

A decent one that won't adversely effect the image quality will probably cost half of what the lens does...

manjuice · 10 Feb 2011 at 11:16

Tooks said:
As above, I really wouldn't bother with a filter for protection at all.

A decent one that won't adversely effect the image quality will probably cost half of what the lens does...

I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a picture with a £12 filter on and off.

Tooks · 10 Feb 2011 at 11:34

tchan_4 said:
I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a picture with a £12 filter on and off.

Maybe, maybe not.

The photographer is the biggest variable anyway.

You have your views, I have mine, but experience and a lot of money wasted on cheap filters tells me that they rarely do anything to enhance image quality, and more often than not make it worse, and that's before you get in to colour casts...

D.P. · 10 Feb 2011 at 12:42

tchan_4 said:
I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a picture with a £12 filter on and off.

On the contrary, it is very easy (depending on the lighting).

mhk1058 · 11 Feb 2011 at 00:49

I've never seen a definitive answer to the need for a UV filter with a digital camera. Certainly needed for film but I'm not so sure about digital and I have never bothered, although they certainly make cleaning easier, particularly if the front element is recessed a lot.

D.P. · 11 Feb 2011 at 08:09

mhk1058 said:
I've never seen a definitive answer to the need for a UV filter with a digital camera. Certainly needed for film but I'm not so sure about digital and I have never bothered, although they certainly make cleaning easier, particularly if the front element is recessed a lot.

Digital sensors have no issue with UV unlike film, so the UV coating of a UV filter has no purpose these days. They are used only for protection, so under these circumstances you need a high quality filter to provide protection and you want to avoid low quality filters which visually reduce the image quality.

I use no filters on cheap lenses (< £500) and use high quality B+W filters on my expensive lenses for casual shooting, but remove them for professional photography.

However, a CPL is on my walk about lenses most of the time anyway.