topic Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2 in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

wchettel — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 04:38:20 GMT

Hello folks! I just purchased a Canon EOS Rebel SL2 3-lens Bundle from COSTCO. I've read several articles / discussions online that say that using a UV filter Improves the quality of outdoor shots and also helps to protect the main lens from accidental damage. I've also read a few that say that UV protection is built-in to most DSLR cameras nowadays and that the use of a UV filter is not necessary.

Based on your experience, do I need to use a UV filter on my SL2?

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Waddizzle — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:50:14 GMT

Nearly all image sensor assemblies in digital cameras have a UV filter. I only use B+W Nano Clear filters.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Tronhard — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:16:16 GMT

This topic inevitably generates some debate. First however, you are not getting a filter for your camera but for the lens attached to it.

No matter what the lens is, it is cheaper to replace a filter on the front of the lens than to replace damage to the front element of your lens. So I alway have a protective filter on my lenses. I agree with the last response that there is no point in putting a cheap lens (plastic or glass) with dubious optical quality on a lens. Whether that is a clear protective or UV0 lens probably depends on price and availability.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

ebiggs1 — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:11:40 GMT

"...the use of a UV filter is not necessary."

It is unnecessary and will not improve anything. The truth is, it may make things worse.

I can almost guarantee that!

Tell me what exactly does this include? "I just purchased a Canon EOS Rebel SL2 3-lens Bundle from COSTCO."

Most of the time these 'bundles' or 'kits' are worthless. I hope you got one that is good and worth what you paid for it.

As far as using a filter for lens protection, you need to weigh the cost of the lens and the cost of a top quality protecto filter. It makes little sense to put a $50 protecto filter on a $100 kit lens for example.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

wchettel — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:49:27 GMT

Thanks for your feedback on the UV lens filter. And FYI, here's a link to the Costco page that describes what I got. Except, it was $599 when I bought it. It's all genuine Canon with with Canon warranties.

[link removed per forum guidelines; replaced with screenshots from linked site to facilitate conversation]

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

John_ — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:53:51 GMT

I looked at that link just out of curiosity as I am not in the market for a camera. The product page did not go into details on the 3 lenses included in the kit On the reviews, a common complaint was with the 75-300mm lens. Some said it is an outdated model with no IS and one said that that lens was made for film and not a digital camera? Is that possible?

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

wchettel — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 18:59:12 GMT

@John_ wrote:
I looked at that link just out of curiosity as I am not in the market for a camera. The product page did not go into details on the 3 lenses included in the kit On the reviews, a common complaint was with the 75-300mm lens. Some said it is an outdated model with no IS and one said that that lens was made for film and not a digital camera? Is that possible?

FYI, here's a little more info on the lenses.

The 18-55mm Standard Zoom Lens is an EF-S 18-55mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM lens.
The 50mm Portrait Lens is an EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM lens. It has no stabilization.
The 75-300mm Long Zoom Lens is an EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III lens. It has no stabilization and I Ihave no way of knowing if it was made for film and not digital. I will use it on a tripod.

These lenses are probably not what you would choose for your camera, but I'm confident that they'll be more than adequate for my simple needs. After all, it's only an entry level SL2 DSLR. They are genuine Canon lenses with warranties and serial numbers. And, if one of them does not work out well, I can always return the whole thing to Costco for a refund!

I only wanted a better camera than what I had in my cell phone. I enjoy taking pics of the moon and stars which I couldn't do on my phone camera.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

ebiggs1 — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:46:32 GMT

"The 18-55mm Standard Zoom Lens is an EF-S 18-55mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM lens.

The 50mm Portrait Lens is an EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM lens.

The 75-300mm Long Zoom Lens is an EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III lens"

IMHO, I would not filter any of these lenses. Just enjoy what you have and shoot away.

BTW, no Canon 50mil has IS.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Waddizzle — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 22:38:41 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"The 18-55mm Standard Zoom Lens is an EF-S 18-55mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM lens.
The 50mm Portrait Lens is an EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM lens.
The 75-300mm Long Zoom Lens is an EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III lens"

IMHO, I would not filter any of these lenses. Just enjoy what you have and shoot away.
BTW, no Canon 50mil has IS.

The filters are all under $30. Well worth it for the 18-55mm.

What about hoods? I would want a hood for the 18-55mm, which is less than $25. I think you should have a hood.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

wchettel — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:23:49 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
@ebiggs1 wrote:
"The 18-55mm Standard Zoom Lens is an EF-S 18-55mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM lens.
The 50mm Portrait Lens is an EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM lens.
The 75-300mm Long Zoom Lens is an EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III lens"

IMHO, I would not filter any of these lenses. Just enjoy what you have and shoot away.
BTW, no Canon 50mil has IS.
The filters are all under $30. Well worth it for the 18-55mm.

What about hoods? I would want a hood for the 18-55mm, which is less than $25. I think you should have a hood.

Thank you for your response Waddizzle!

Is there a source other than Amazon to purchase the B & W Nano Clear filters that you prefer? Two of my lenses have the same diameter for filter size, so that helps.

And how about the hoods? There are flower-shaped hoods and tapered cylindrical-shaped hoods - which to get? Each of the lenses I have requires a different hood.

I can order all of this from Amazon, but is there a better place to buy? I have an Amazon-branded Visa card that pays nice cash rewards!

Thanks again! I appreciate your advice.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

ebiggs1 — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:21:01 GMT

"And how about the hoods? There are flower-shaped hoods and tapered cylindrical-shaped hoods - which to get?"

Each lens has a dedicated lens hood designed especially for it. It will have a model number. You need to ge that hood.

"I can order all of this from Amazon, but is there a better place to buy?"

There is really nothing wrong with Amazon per se but if you don't know exactly what you want or need, you are likely to not get it from Amazon. Then you end up buying it twice. Any of the large retail outlets like B&H, Adorama, Roberts, Best Buy or a local camera shop is far better. A local camera shop can be a god send. Perhaps a bit more expensive but they are a one on one local photography info center.

"Two of my lenses have the same diameter for filter size, so that helps."

Why, not really. A protecto filter needs to be on the lens all the time. So each lens needs its own filter However, I still recommend you not waste the money on protecto filters as too expensive for these lenses. Instead save that money and get real Canon hoods for each lens. Use the hood every time you use the lens. It, the hood, also serves as a protection device.

The protecto B+W filters offer nothing beneficial except protection. They do not and will not improve your photos. The hoods, on the other hand, will improve your photos and do offer some protection.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Waddizzle — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 19:41:03 GMT

Is there a source other than Amazon to purchase the B & W Nano Clear filters that you prefer? Two of my lenses have the same diameter for filter size, so that helps.

And how about the hoods? There are flower-shaped hoods and tapered cylindrical-shaped hoods - which to get? Each of the lenses I have requires a different hood.

I can order all of this from Amazon, but is there a better place to buy? I have an Amazon-branded Visa card that pays nice cash rewards!

You would want a hood that is custom made for a particular lens. The shape is carefully designed to remain just outside of view. Most generic hoods show up at the edges of your photos. I buy all of my Canon gear either direct from Canon, or from B&H in NYC. There are other excellent vendors out there, but I have excellent service with these two.

[Links to B&H photo removed per forum policy. Replaced with screenshots of products offered at the corresponding links.]

The only lens I would buy a filter for would be the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. It has a list price of $250. I think a $25 filter would be a good thing. The hood you need for this lens can be found at the above link, EW-63C.

The Canon hood can be mounted in a reversed orientation for storage in your camera bag. Cheap hoods cannot do that. You may want to look for used hoods at KEH.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Waddizzle — Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:24:02 GMT

“The protecto B+W filters offer nothing beneficial except protection. They do not and will not improve your photos. The hoods, on the other hand, will improve your photos and do offer some protection.”

The average wide angle lens hood does not offer very much in the way of protection, simply because they do not have much depth. .

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Tronhard — Wed, 02 Oct 2019 04:32:39 GMT

I have a sense of deja vu with this thread...

I think most lenses deserve some protection from the elements (depending on where the photographer works) and from impact I am not sure that I know of any lens that is cheaper to replace than the cost of a filter or a hood.

A filter will protect from salt spray, sand, grubby fingers etc. and in some cases will protect from the camera being dropped and the lens taking the hit (the centre of gravity is usually inclinded to rotate towards the lens). I have had all of these experiences myself and can attest to the lens saving the front element from damage. There is some evidence to suggest that a filter can reduce the bellows effect of an extending lens sucking in dust.

I always carry a blower with me, along with a lens brush and proper optical cleaning cloths. If I am going somewhere that may require further cleaning I take along a small bottle of optical cleaning liquid - available from camera stores or opticians. Avoid any harsh chemicals or domestic glass cleaning sprays.

PERSONALLY, I tend to put on a UV0 or similar unit to get a slight improvement in UV performance - and they can be cheaper, although I am the first to acknowledge that lenses have multi-coatings of their own to do this as well. If you are going to put a filter on get a decent one - avoid knock-offs and plastic units - perhaps read reviews for filter brands on the web.

What a filter does not protect from is a direct frontal impact which might shatter the filter and the front element or cause the filter to scar it. Even from an angled impact a hood can take the hit and act as a cushioning spring to lessen impact on the lens. Lens hoods, as has also been pointed out, protect from light entering the lens from the side and bouncing around in the elements causing distracting light patterns. So a properly selected hood is a good thing in that respect too. While they add bulk to a lens they can usually be reversed for transport, although in that configuration they will not provide protection to the front of the lens. Hoods from the original manufacturers tend to be horrendeously expensive, so I personally use cheaper after-market units and have not had a bad experience with them so far.

My point is that is that it is not an either / or situation. Both types of protection can be valid depending on how you use your camera. I tend to use both types of protectoin for my own gear - and that's my own choice.

If you want to improve the quality of your photos I suggest reviewing the 75-300mm lens you got. It is arguably the worst performing lens Canon has made and I would personally sell it.. Good alternatives would be the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, or if you need the extra reach the EF 70-300 IS USM f4-5.6. There are two versions of the latter, either one would be better than what you have and they can both be found refurbished or second hand - the Mk I will should be dirt cheap and it has good optics.

See my review thread: 70-300mm Non-L lenses

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

wchettel — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 16:16:24 GMT

Thank you to all that took the time to post a reply to my question about UV lens filters! It was a learning experience for me. I have ordered hoods for the 3 lenses that came with my camera. I've also added some good quality UV clear filters to my wish list for a possible future purchase to get some added protection for the lenses.

Thanks again!

Walter

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

John_SD — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 18:07:26 GMT

@wchettel wrote:
Thank you to all that took the time to post a reply to my question about UV lens filters! It was a learning experience for me. I have ordered hoods for the 3 lenses that came with my camera. I've also added some good quality UV clear filters to my wish list for a possible future purchase to get some added protection for the lenses.

Thanks again!

Walter

I don't know where you live or shoot, but I'm in SoCal and most photographers out here use a good UV or clear filter. People who don't are shooting indoors, at the side of the bird bath or in some other soft environment. You'll look like a fool spending the day in the desert, the forest, or at the tidepools or oceanside without a protective filter. And it will be costly down the road when you need to replace or repair your lens sooner rather than later. Be smart and use a filter.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Tronhard — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 19:50:41 GMT

Wchettel:

We really have no idea of the conditions, and therefore risks, under which you will be taking photos, so it is hard for us to gauge what level of protection you need. Given that you seem to be starting your photographic journey I can understand that you do not want to over-invest in gear.

That said, I would bypass filters ONLY if you are in a controlled environment - such as a studio. Even taking photos where there are other people around, especially kids, can result in your camera getting knocked off a table, having sticky fingers on the front element or some kind of abrasion. Taking photos in a kitchen environment where the front element will get splashed or accumulate particulates from cooking will mean the lens needs to be cleaned, and I would rather clean a filter than the front element.

I observe that you look forward to using your telephoto to take photos of the moon and stars, which is fine, but be aware that the more you head into the great outdoors the more exposure to risk to your gear. Only you know that level of risk.

What I will simply ask is: given the advice you have received and considering you have a brand new investment, how will you feel if you damage the front element and will you then regret not getting full protection? Especially considering you might consider returning the camera if you want something else - it is likely they will not accept anthing other than a pristine return. It's a simple question, and only you know the answer to that...

A word of caution. You have one camera body and 3 lenses, so it is inevitble that you will be changing lenses. You must turn off the camera while doing so.

When a lens is attached, the internals of the camera are relatively protected from dust, moisture etc. When you open up the camera to change lenses that allows foreign elements in - getting dust or hairs on your viewfinder or mirror is irritating and dstracting, but dust on your imaging sensor is much more significant. It will result in blotches on every image you take and will need to be cleaned off by someone who knows what they are doing. So avoidance is a much better solution. When the camera is turned on the sensor will become much more attractive to dust because of the current running through it, so you reduce your risk by turning off the camera before you take off the lens and turn it on again only after the new lens, or the front body cap, has been engaged. Getting a camera cleaned is not cheap.

The body cap that came with your camera is very useful. It will dock with a rear lens cap and keep them both free of dust while you have them in your bag or pocket. Keeping the body cap in your pocket unprotected simply allows lint and dust to accumulte in it and that will transfer to the lens, and eventually end up inside your camera.

When making the change of lenses your camera should be angled front or lens down when taking the lens off - this reduces the risk of foreign matter or moisture dropping onto the inside of the camera through gravity. Always check the rear mount of a lens for dust before you attach it (I suggest at home in a clean area before you put the rear cap back on).

If you want to get good video educational material on photography on every level, I recommend looking on your local library website for a listing for lynda.com. If it is there you have free access to a huge range of excellent videos on every aspect of photography (including astrophotography) and at every level from the basics to advanced technques. Even if your library does not offer access you can go to the website itself and get a free no-obligation month of access.

I still stand by my comments on the 75-300 BTW...

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

ebiggs1 — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 22:00:26 GMT

" I've also added some good quality UV clear filters to my wish list for a possible future purchase to get some added protection for the lenses."

I am a big promoter for protecto filters. I have one on almost all of my lenses. In your case, you won't hurt anything by buying and using them so little is lost to the investment. However, if you are like most people you like to save money. That savings can be applied to a more useful and wanted item. Even another lens. In the less costly lenses the advantage is also less because less is at risk. Make sense? The addition of a hood provides some protection and it does offer soem improvement to the quality of your shots. The protecto or UV filters will add nothing in spite of what somebody might claim. In fact there are times whne it will actuall hurt the shot.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Tronhard — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 23:06:32 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
" I've also added some good quality UV clear filters to my wish list for a possible future purchase to get some added protection for the lenses."

I am a big promoter for protecto filters. I have one on almost all of my lenses. In your case, you won't hurt anything by buying and using them so little is lost to the investment. However, if you are like most people you like to save money. That savings can be applied to a more useful and wanted item. Even another lens. In the less costly lenses the advantage is also less because less is at risk. Make sense? The addition of a hood provides some protection and it does offer soem improvement to the quality of your shots. The protecto or UV filters will add nothing in spite of what somebody might claim. In fact there are times whne it will actuall hurt the shot.

As I said Ernie... I have a sense of Déjà vu on this one...

I always try to take the road that it depends on the user's specific circumstances.

That said, I believe my advice on changing lenses is valid under all conditions and I sincerely believe my comments about the 75-300... Stars are small and if that lens is used for shooting them I am pretty pessimistic about the results. It would be interesting to see what kinds of shots the OP gets.

Re: Do I need a UV filter on my SL2

Waddizzle — Fri, 04 Oct 2019 23:08:56 GMT

@wchettel wrote:
Thank you to all that took the time to post a reply to my question about UV lens filters! It was a learning experience for me. I have ordered hoods for the 3 lenses that came with my camera. I've also added some good quality UV clear filters to my wish list for a possible future purchase to get some added protection for the lenses.

Thanks again!

Walter

You do not need UV filters. A quality clear filter should be sufficient protection. I would only by a filter for the 18-55mm lens. Do not bother with the 75-300. The hood is more than deep enough to protect the front lens.