Should I get a UV filter?

kelly1

Hello all, first time posting in this forum.

I have a Canon S2 IS and I'm planning on getting a barrel adapter from lensmateonline.com so I can fit a Raynox wide angle lens but also filters and a proper lens cap i.e. one that doesn't keep falling off!

Is it worth my while getting a UV filter? Does it make a big diffrence? Would a polarizer be better?

Thanks,
Noel.

5uspect

On digital the UV is only really good for protection if you drop the camera.
It does reduce haze but you won't really notice.
Get a circular polariser. Far more dramatic effect.

kelly1

5uspect wrote: »

On digital the UV is only really good for protection if you drop the camera.
It does reduce haze but you won't really notice.
Get a circular polariser. Far more dramatic effect.

Thanks for the quick reply 5uspect. I think considering the big price difference, I'll just go with the UV for lens protection.

AnCatDubh

Have a search on the forum. This crops up regularly but to summarise the discussions that i've been privy to;

- Technically it does make a difference with subtleties in the blue/purple colour space however it is really a technical difference and with particular kinds of light which most mere mortals won't realise is effecting it unless you go pixel peeking.

- It does offer good protection for expensive glass but maybe you should just be more careful.

- Purists will be horrified with the UV filter opinion on the basis of "don't put anything between the glass and the composition" i.e. a cheap UV filter loaded ontop of expensive glass = cheap UV filter images.

The truth ? pffffftttttttttt...... There's probably merit in all the arguments. UV's aren't the most expensive thing in the world so it's probably worth a try.

Me? I'm that purist that thinks you should never put anything between the glass and the composition. I also don't own one so it's a comfortable place for me to be

pp_me129

If You Are Ever Taking Seascapes It Also Protects The Lense From The Salt In The Air.