Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

UV Filter or Professional Protection Filter

P

powerhouse7

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
132
0
Canberra, Australia
Hi.

I've recently bought a Nikkor 24 - 70mm f/2.8 ED Lens, and I definitely want to put a filter on at all times for protection. After doing some research, i've nailed it down to 2 contenders. Which do you think I should get and why?

Hoya HD Professional Protector Filter - 77mm

or

Hoya HD Professional UV Filter - 77mm


Thanks for your help in advance.
 
A photographer friend of mine also said, that if your really HAVE to put a protective filter on your lenses it should be a B & W multicoated plain glass one.
I don't have a filter on all the time because the same person told me that nowadays the front elements are made to withstand some hits (maybe not straight onto concrete but still) as lenses are more and more used in more demanding situations. this goes especially for high end lenses.
 
firestarter said:
Get insurance cover for your lens.
Always use it with its lens hood.

What's the point of buying the best glass then compromising it with unnecessary filters?
Click to expand...

This. Buying an expensive lens and putting on a cheap lump of glass seems silly to me.

It's like buying a 50" plasma TV and putting a piece of plexiglass over it "just in case" it gets damaged.
 
hehehe, i like the 5" plasma comparison.. gonna use that in the future :D

instead of buying UV filters, better get a circular polarizer or ND filters...
 
powerhouse7 said:
Hi.

I've recently bought a Nikkor 24 - 70mm f/2.8 ED Lens, and I definitely want to put a filter on at all times for protection.
Click to expand...

Protection from What?

Is there blowing sand or saltwater spray? Will you be cleaning the filter many times because of the envviromant.

No filter will protect a lens from impact but a lens hood might.

When you buy a filter the best way to test it is to stand wth you back to soething bright, like an exterior window or a llamp and look at the reflection over your shoulder is if the filter were a mirror. The best filters make very poor mirrors and you will not be able to see much. Really cheep filters will reflect well and give you a good view.

So, seeing as this filter will degrade the quality of every image shoot through it yo want the one that does the least harm. The filters that make decent mirrors will lower the overall contrast and maybe even cause some lens flair. the better filters do the same but only to a nearly undetectable level.

Much better to simply use a lens cap.

It's like buying a 50" plasma TV and putting a piece of plexiglass over it
Click to expand...

The plexiglas idea is reasonable in special cases where the LCD screen is likely to be damaged. Perhaps in a machine shop. Or maybe where small children can touch it with dirty hands. I'm sure there are many cases where you'd want it.

Same with filters. Blowing salt spray is the worst. You can't clean it off the glass except to soak the glass in water. Easy to do ig you have a filter. I've soaked slat-sprayed equipment more tan once.

But it would be silly to use a clear filter in a studio environment.
 
I understand that its stupid putting a cheap filter on an expensive lens, and I have insurance for my gear (but i'd rather not have to use it) but I wanted a filter as another layer of protection.

In the end, I bought a Hoya HD Professional UV Filter. The filter works great and gives my images a bit more clarity and doesn't degrade quality (its the best filter I could find).
 
powerhouse7 said:
I understand that its stupid putting a cheap filter on an expensive lens, and I have insurance for my gear (but i'd rather not have to use it) but I wanted a filter as another layer of protection.

In the end, I bought a Hoya HD Professional UV Filter. The filter works great and gives my images a bit more clarity and doesn't degrade quality (its the best filter I could find).
Click to expand...

I would like to see this "bit more clarity"? As I think many will debate this!
 
when i said "a bit more clarity" I mean it gets rid of haze, particularly with landscape photography where you have photos with backgrounds kilometers away.
 
I understand everyones point of view here but accidents do happen as do kids fingers all over the front element. So if your cleaning cloth gets contaminated you've only damaged a $50 filter not the coating on the front element.
Very few of us would be able to separate an image taken with a filter vs one take without.
 
One very real benefit of a good filter is that it seals the front element of a lens from dust. Canon even states in the manuals of some of its L lenses (for example, the 17-40 f/4L) that a UV filter is required to complete the weather sealing. I have one on my 17-55 for that reason; it's notorious for collecting dust under the front element, and mine has not a speck, even after lots of use at dusty archaeological sites.

If you do get a UV filter, make sure it is multi-coated. That much is very important. Hoya will do fine, but only if it's HMC.
 
powerhouse7 said:
when i said "a bit more clarity" I mean it gets rid of haze, particularly with landscape photography where you have photos with backgrounds kilometers away.
Click to expand...

Still would like to see proof. What exactly is this filter doing where it ends up cutting out haze?

The marketing line you reiterate here really comes from back in the film days where early films were sensitive to light in the UV range. In very bright daylight, at high elevations, etc. where the ambient UV is strong, the invisible UV light could expose on the film adding a bluish or purplish cast to the picture. The UV filter would help combat this.

Modern color films are much less sensitive to UV than they used to be. Digital sensors by nature are not very sensitive to UV wavelengths either. Therefore, you don't really get these problems anymore.

While UV filters still serve nicely as protective elements, they aren't cutting any haze whatsoever. In fact some argue that due to the imperfect nature of real filters, you compromise very slightly your blues as the filter's blocking bleeds into the far blue/purple region of the spectrum. Thus the argument for the plain glass or NC (neutral color/no color) filters as an alternative for protection.
 
powerhouse7 said:
Hi.

I've recently bought a Nikkor 24 - 70mm f/2.8 ED Lens, and I definitely want to put a filter on at all times for protection. After doing some research, i've nailed it down to 2 contenders. Which do you think I should get and why?

Hoya HD Professional Protector Filter - 77mm

or

Hoya HD Professional UV Filter - 77mm


Thanks for your help in advance.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Nikon NC multi-coated clear filter is as good or better than those listed. There is no need for UV protection with your dSLR.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/121298-REG/Nikon_2482_77mm_Clear_NC_Glass.html

The price is reasonable too.

S-
 
So which one to get then?

Nikon 77Mm Filter Nc Neutral Colour

or

Hoya 77mm Super HMC Pro-1 UV (O) Filter
 
People also seem to forget that:

1) Scratches on the front element generally don't impact image quality (gouges are another matter).

2) Lenses can be repaired. If you do somehow manage to severely damage the front element, it's not like you have to throw away the lens.
 
I bought (2) 58mm top line Hoya's UV, mainly for the lens protection, had them on 100% of time for 1st month or so.

Ha, I even got my polarizer filter stuck to my UV filter , https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/818216/ , got it off after help from here.

Now, I have them off 98% of time except when I want their "effect".

I could have saved $$'s by not buying (1) of the UV's, I might sell it as "barely used".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back