Advice - Filters

Gumbo

Guys,

I am in the process of selling my 50mm 1.8 and 18-135mm in order to fund a 28mm f1.8 lens for my Canon 550d.

I am wondering about filters?

The options available to me seem to be :

• UV Filter (Blocks UV light to the sensor and offers protection)
• ND Filter
• Polarizer Filter

Do i need one?
Should i get one for lens protection anyway and if so which suits?

I mainly shoot outdoors in an urban environment but not limited to.

Any advice, as always, appreciated

Keith

ImagenEstilo

I use UV filters on all my lenses only for protecting the front element, nothing more. They are supposed to reduce UV haze alright.

I would not use an ND filter for lens protection as it is reducing light reaching your lens and this is something you may not want all the time. You should only use an ND filter where you want more freedom with your aperture (for info ND Filters and aperture)or shutter speed (for info ND Filters and shutter speed).

A polarizer again is something you may not want attached to your lens all the time and they need constant configuration depending on light reflections etc, so I would be against having one of those on permanently.

To be honest, I would, over time, get all the above filters, but you need to know what they are used for and obviously how they should be used. On a lens like the one you are getting I would stick a Pro1 UV filter on it. They are reasonably cheap and will certainly protect your front end. Far easier to replace a filter than a front element in my opinion.

Dunno if that helps.

Disclosure: Moderators, the two links attached are to two individual articles on ND filters on my website and are very relevant to this post. The intention is not to increase website traffic (this I could not care less about) but to provide some info.

magicbastarder

to echo the above, you'd only need an ND filter if you wanted to increase the length of your exposure - or are shooting in conditions too bright to allow you to use your f1.8 aperture. though i don't recall the last time the latter would have happened to me.

Gumbo

Thanks guys, I was 99% sure I only needed the UV one but just wanted to double check.
Thanks

cnocbui

I have seen controlled test results of how UV filters degrade the image quality of lenses. I don't see the point in owning superb lenses, only to degrade their performance by far more then a scratch or two would. I stopped using them some years ago. AFAIK, the blocking of UV light was only really an advantage for shooting film, at fairly high altitude where there was considerably less air to block the UV.

If you want to protect a lens while using it, stick a lens hood on. When not using it, store it in something like a Pelican case with silica gel sachets.

Polarising filters are occasionally useful. Getting one to suit your largest diameter lens, and step down thread adapters to fit the smaller lenses seems a good approach

ImagenEstilo

cnocbui wrote: »

I have seen controlled test results of how UV filters degrade the image quality of lenses. I don't see the point in owning superb lenses, only to degrade their performance by far more then a scratch or two would. I stopped using them some years ago. AFAIK, the blocking of UV light was only really an advantage for shooting film, at fairly high altitude where there was considerably less air to block the UV.

Yep, I've heard this before. But I am still unsure as to the practical day to day applications of this. I have in the past opted for the cheaper UV filters and this was a big mistake. I now use the Hoya Pro1 filters on all lenses and can safely say they have not impacted image quality. Certainly not up to the sizes I would print and that would be large enough.

It's probably just a personal thing but I just couldn't go out without having some sort of filter on a lens. The only exception to this is a 50 1.4G I have that has no filter. I originally bought the cheap version and found it had horrendous consequences on image quality so I binned it and have not got around to getting a proper one yet.

I'd be sick to the teeth if I got even the slightest nick on any of my better lenses.

Dave

cnocbui

Shooting into the sun or towards other strong light sources exacerbates lens flare, internal reflections and degrades contrast, irrespective of brand.

Each to their own. My most expensive lens would take a 100mm filter. Extending the hood does a better job of protection and can actually improve the IQ in many situations.

Gumbo

Thanks guys. I ordered the Hoya pro 1d filter anyway. €26 brand new so may as well try it out. Thanks for the advice. I read the links above to the testing of the filters and the Hoya seems to score really well with no damage to IQ in the tests and a high score.

Anyway, took the plunge, sold my 50mm 1.8 yesterday and have some strong offers on my 18-135mm now so I went and ordered the filter and 28mm F1.8!

ImagenEstilo

You might stick a few pics up kceire. A 28 1.8 is something I have had on my wish list for environmental portraits. I'd be going for the Nikon version of it but I am sure the specs are similar. I'd be especially interested in the out of focus areas. One small thing as a suggestion, shooting wide open you may end up clipping on sunny days. You may need an ND filter to allow you shoot at 1.8 without overexposure. What is the max shutter speed and native base ISO on the 550D as a matter of interest?

Rew

Smashed the UV filter on my 24-105mm last week. Replaced it with a Hoya HD filter protector from amazon for 50 quid.

poundhound

I dropped a Nikon 10-24mm ultra wide angle lens literally 2 days after purchase and my stomach turned when I picked it up and heard the rustle of broken glass.

However when I removed the lens cap and poured out the broken glass, I realised the UV filter took the force and shattered but the lens itself and its glass was totally unscathed.

It was a lesson well and truly learned and I now invest in a UV filter with every lens I purchase.