Do I need UV filter or polarizer

Climate Expert

Have D40 with 18-200VR.
I'll be taking lots of pics over the summer on various holidays. Is there a need for a UV filter or a polarizer. Both?

Where should I get them?

Fajitas!

Most camera shops will sell them, using them isn't essential.

The UV's only real use with a digital camera is to protect the lens from scratches, dirt, etc. Some will tell you not to bother, others will swear by them.

Polarizing filters will increase the saturation of skies to make them darker and more dramatic, aswell as reducing reflections in glass, water, metal, etc. It also reduces the amount of light reaching the lens, so you'll be shooting at a lower shutter speed!!!

Placebo

i got mine at camera exchange, they are kinda pricey , depending on the size.
18mm i think for 17-85 set me back 20-22 euros i think.

Freddie59

Placebo wrote: »

i got mine at camera exchange, they are kinda pricey , depending on the size.
18mm i think for 17-85 set me back 20-22 euros i think.

I think you mean 67mm? You can get them here very reasonably.

amcinroy

As I've said before, UV filters are for careless gear bashers / camera polishers who are a bit "precious" about their pride and joy.

UV filters have been invented by marketing men who are out to make a buck out of people that get a wee bit scared when they take their camera to the beach.

Now polarisers, can sometimes come in handy. They do tend to be overused the moment a bit of blue sky appears. they should be used with caution and rarely at their maximum polarisation. They are more useful for reflection control.

Now wasn't that a controversial one.

Fajitas!

amcinroy wrote: »

As I've said before, UV filters are for careless gear bashers

That'd be me!

CabanSail

I have the 18-200 VR too. The two filters I have are Hoya HMC UV & CPL.

The UV is really to protect the front element of the lens. Take it off when you put on the CPL or else you will get vignetteing. I have recently replaced my CPL as it got a knock & chipped the glass. It cost me a few quid but saved the lens. It would have been cheaper if it was the UV on at the time but it still served a purpose. I have read lots of stories of people dropping lenses & being thankful that they had a filter on the front.

If you are going to do any landscapes or outdoor shots then I would get a CPL. You will drop about 1 to 1.5 F stops but in bright conditions this is not much of an issue. For any serious landscapes you will be using a tripod, so once again not really a problem. If the loss of light is an issue then take it off & put the UV back on instead.

Shop around as there are quite big differences in the prices, but go for a quality filter rather than a cheap one. I paid about £33 for the CPL & £16 for the UV, so not a lot of money really. Why compromise the quality glass you have with a sub standard element on the front?

In a nutshell, you can get by without them but probably would be better off getting them.

quilmore

amcinroy wrote: »

camera polishers who are a bit "precious" about their pride and joy

I will sympathize with Fajitas and raise my hand on this one
simply, I feel bad if I don't have the filter for a lens before going to the shop to buy it (or receive it by post)
probably if you take the filter out now, the air inside will still smell to len's packaging

thefizz

amcinroy wrote: »

As I've said before, UV filters are for careless gear bashers / camera polishers who are a bit "precious" about their pride and joy.

UV filters have been invented by marketing men who are out to make a buck out of people that get a wee bit scared when they take their camera to the beach.

I have to agree with Andy. It reminds me of people who leave the plastic covering on the seats of their new car for ages to keep it clean :rolleyes:

mathias

Have to agree here as well , a UV filter as protection , not really necessary , you have a cap for the lens , use that , given the price of some of these things its definitely taking advantage of paranoia , and the way shop assistants push them by comparing the price to the price of the lens really makes be angry.

Theres no justification for the prices of some of those UV filters.

CabanSail

Lens Cap? I remember them, they came with the lens & got lost about the second or third time out.

I would not call €20 for a Hoya Filter expensive.

quilmore

The hoya filter covering my 70-200 2.8 vr costed me 1.5% of what I've paid for the lens

mcdonnells

For my two pence I would say an 81A instead of UV and also a Polariser.
The difference can be emence especially if planning @ holiday at any time in the near future.

Re costs, old saying 'poor man pays twice' Im now replacing my 'great value' filters for super thin ones, reducing vignetting (bit of an issue with some polarisers)

Also investing in Cokin P system rather than multiple circular filters an option

Best of luck deciding

Paulw

I have UV filters on all my lenses. Hoya Pro 1 filters.

A polarising filter is always great especially for those very bright sunny days, or out near water. Well worth the investment.