lens Filter????

zdooldreb

Im looking to buy a filter to
a. protect my lenses
b. minimise the effects of ultra violet rays.

There seems to be a variation in price and im not sure what the difference is or if it really matters. Opinions please.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=11770

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/category/basecategory.aspx?cat03=3072

Also if someone knows where I could get a filter like the ones above even cheaper then it would be great:D

Thirdfox

Here's one for 3 euro (77mm thread)
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.16733 (very reliable site - I use them for odds and ends (lens caps, optical flash slave triggers, 2 dollar gifts etc.)

There are normally two camps in the filter debate - one is to have and the other is to not degrade image quality.

Personally, I don't use filters, unless necessary (dusty, wet, dangerous situations). So I buy the 5 dollar filters. Basically they're just a piece of glass (you can get multi-coated ones for 10 dollars on ebay (free shipping)).

Others who always has a filter on their lenses probably should buy the 50 dollar filters to put on their 700 dollar lenses... but when my lens only costs 35 dollars it doesn't really make sense to "protect" it with a 50 dollar filter

...oh and the UV filter doesn't really minimise UV much at all (since digital sensors are really bad at detecting UV, it's more for film cameras - you probably wouldn't see a difference if you just used a clear filter).

Thirdfox

Oh and here's a "premium" multicoated UV filter for 7 dollars
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15092

You didn't say what thread size you want...

Just as a matter of interest - the unit cost (from the factories) costs around 1.2 dollars per filter...meaning that raw production costs around 60 or 70 cents I guess.

zdooldreb

Thanks for the repsonses.
I have a Nikon 18 - 200mm lenses, thread size 72mm.
Do you think the second filter you posted would degrade the quality of any images taken?

Thirdfox

all filters degrade the IQ, the difference is in how much...

this is dependant on a lot of factors - I probably wouldn't put this in front of a 70-200 f2.8, but over my 55-200? Sure... and really, what is there to lose? 7 dollars?

One thing that occurs with cheaper filters is that ghosting gets troublesome at night when shooting into bright light sources directly. However, I see this even in the 30+ euro filters too and suspect you need the really high quality 50+ euro ones to get rid of the problem (through better coatings).

So, at night I just take the filter off (if I had it on in the first place).

And one last tip about filters - one piece of advice I got was to get the largest you can (within reason) and get step-up/down rings to match all your lenses... this way you don't need to continuously buy more filters as you purchase different lenses.

I'm probably going to get the 2nd filter for my new 10-20mm Sigma.

The question to ask is, is the degradation of iq (guaranteed to happen to some degree, even with a 100 euro filter) acceptable for my requirements? You lose 5 euro if it isn't acceptable (and at least end up with an emergency filter )

zdooldreb

Cool.
I am going for the filter around 5 - 7 euros. I will sus out the degradation in quality and decide then. At least it will be useful in harsh conditions.
Cheers.

mehfesto2

There's a good piece on filters (mostly nd grads) in Digital SLR this month. It could be one of the other ones (it's mentioned on the front anyway), had a read of it on my lunch today and it was pretty good. Went through the pros and cons of different brands.

Anouilh

zdooldreb wrote: »

Im looking to buy a filter to
a. protect my lenses
b. minimise the effects of ultra violet rays.

A UV filter is not always necessary. It is very useful for seaside and mountain shots, as this site explains:

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/20/14/xx/433/1/criteresn.html

However, even using it at the seaside is debatable, as you will find here:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/technique/discuss/117711/

Flickr has several good filter groups and I find a polarizing filter very useful:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157603666677895/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/filters/

quilmore

I'm one that believes on filters
OP, this is the model of filters I use
a tad over the rest but thin and happy with the double coating
http://cgi.ebay.ie/Hoya-72mm-UV-Pro1-DIGITAL-DMC-Multi-Coated-72-Filter_W0QQitemZ400043919729QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Filters?hash=item400043919729&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

cheap filters will have internal reflections on very brigth scenes

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

A UV filter is not always necessary.

A UV filter isn't needed at all. An SLR has a built in UV filter, to protect the sensor. UV filters were needed more for film photography.

However, a cheap filter will degrade any image, while a quality filter should keep the image as-is. A UV filter should not have any effect on the image.

I always use Hoya Pro-1 filters, more just to protect the end of the lens, and also to weather seal my lenses (some lenses aren't weather sealed without a filter).

For filters, cheap isn't always good, in fact, cheap can be bad. Buy quality always.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

A UV filter isn't needed at all. An SLR has a built in UV filter, to protect the sensor. UV filters were needed more for film photography.

However, a cheap filter will degrade any image, while a quality filter should keep the image as-is. A UV filter should not have any effect on the image.

I always use Hoya Pro-1 filters, more just to protect the end of the lens, and also to weather seal my lenses (some lenses aren't weather sealed without a filter).

For filters, cheap isn't always good, in fact, cheap can be bad. Buy quality always.

That is very useful advice.

Sales assistants usually impress the security aspect of UV filters on those of us new to photography. I have never dropped my camera, but the thought of an expensive scratch on a lens did make me get a filter, which I now have the courage to remove often.

It might be interesting to look more closely at the advantages of a UV filter with film. I sometimes make "with" and "without" photos just to see if there is much difference. I have been alerted to the dangers of pixel peeping behaviour, however, of which this could be the start.

peckerhead

Anyone got any thoughts on (or better still, experience of) Jessops' own brand filters? Quite a lot of them on eBay — from apparently bona fides UK sellers — and they're a lot more affordable than the Hoyas...

My camera's a Finepix S9600, cost me €150 secondhand and it seems a bit mad to pay €50+ for a CPL that I'll probably only use in certain lighting situations.

peckerhead

Anyone got any thoughts on (or better still, experience of) Jessops' own brand filters? Quite a lot of them on eBay — from apparently bona fides UK sellers — and they're a lot more affordable than the Hoyas...

My camera's a Finepix S9600, cost me €150 secondhand and it seems a bit mad to pay €50+ for a CPL that I'll probably only use in certain lighting situations.

Rainbowsend

7dayshop very reasonable for filters of all descriptions, prices, qualities etc.