Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

[TexasTea]

I'm looking at getting a clear UV filter for my lens and am unfamiliar with the top brands that won't degrade the image quality.  Any input would be greatly appreciated!

[Vetteran]

Digital camera do not need UV filters.

Polarizing, yes can be beneficial.

[ebiggs1]

"What do peopel think of the Canon ef Filters?"

Someone asked this and, IMHO, I use the UV or more correct Protective Filter made by the manufacturer of the lens.  I.E., a Canon filter on a Canon lens, a Sigma filter on a Siggy and so forth.  I started this routine in the 60's and I have yet to have someone say, "That's a great photo if only you hadn't used a UV filter."

I only buy mine from B&H or Adorama.  You can get complete junk if you aren't careful.

Some say they aren't needed or required and maybe they are right. But...............think.

You spend a $1000 bucks upward and then don't think a $70 dollar filter that may help protect your front lens isn't a good idea?  What planet are you on?  Most seem to forget, filters are removable and if you think you need to, you can remove it! 

But if nothing else they keep you from unnecessary cleaning of the delicate front element.  Well worth the extra cost.

Again, IMHO, as always.

[Vetteran]

Take a bit more care.

UV filters worked for film.

Any filter introduces two more air-to-glass surfaces.

Started photographing in the '50s.

[ebiggs1]

"Started photographing in the '50s."

We must be about the same age!   I started in 1955 with an Argus C3.  I wound up with three of them and still have them.

We'll just have to leave the choice of 'to filter' or 'not to filter' to our own preference.

[thorn]

I purchased a Canon 77mm EF filter, but have not taken it out of the box.

I want  to make sure that I'm getting / using an excellent filter.

The Canon filter was not cheap - $80 - so spending a bit more is not an issue.

I'm wondering why no manufacturer filters are reviewed. Same with Nikon, Sigma, etc..

I can't even find techinal specs on the canon filter - multicoated?, brass?

Thanks for the feedback.

[Vetteran]

Keep a polarizing filter on if you must have a filter but UV is NOT needed for digital cameras.

A polarizer may be of benefit for some snaps

[ebiggs1]

"I can't even find techinal specs on the canon filter ..."

Don't worry about it.  Would Canon spend millions of dollars on lens development and than put crap glass in there filters.  No they would not and neither would Nikon or Sigma.

The above 'ole boy' does have a point, sorta.  Software like Photoshop, not digital, has largely made filters of any type a thing of the past.

The single filter that does remain useful are ND (netural density).  Sometimes you can't stop down enough, right?

Another thing that the anti-filter crowd fails to take notice of, is how are the final photos going to be used?  Anything that is meant for a web site, a filter is impossibile to tell if it was used or not.  Any thing you intend to print at Walmart as 4x6's, it is simply not going to be a factor.  Viewing on most monitor screens, not going to be able to tell.

Even, in fine art print it is going to be nearly impossibile to tell if that UV filter was on the lens or not

UV filters have no effect on digital.  That is true.

However, the filter you bought may save your lens some day.  Maybe not, but cheap insurance at any rate.  But probably the best benefit from a filter is not cleaning the front element of your lens.  Clean the filter instead!

[thorn]

Thank you ebiggs1. I'm along with your thoughts on the matter.
It is cheap peace of mind.
Still not sure about the Canon filter though.
Also thinking about a clear protection filter, instead of uv.
Thanks again.

[ebiggs1]

"Also thinking about a clear protection filter, instead of uv."

It really is a moot point.  A UV filter has no effect on a digital sensor.  Film is sensitive to the UV rays and the UV filter helped in this area.  A digital camera is not as sensitive to them.

Also, bear in mind, you can remove the filter if you have an unlikely situation where it might be a issue.  Most, if not all, of the anti-filter crowd, seem to forget the filter does come off.  It does not become one with the lens when you first screw it on. 

Sometimes a little common sense needs to be used.

[TCampbell]

As ebiggs points out... your camera has a built-in UV (and IR) filter already.  These weren't so necessary with film because the sensitivity of film was entirely dependent on the type of film.  But digital sensors are sensitive to light beyond what a human eye can see.  To avoid allowing this light to skew the look of the final image, the camera has a filter which ramps up it's blocking as the light approaches either the UV or IR end of the spectrum (and yes, it actually blocks a lot of visible light ... that's on purpose.  Human eyes are far more sensitive to greens than we are to blues or reds.  The filters and sensors are designed to attempt to capture, as closely as possible, what a human eye would be able to see.

This means addinga UV filter to the front of your lens is a bit redundant and mostly thought of as a form of lens protection.

Be careful here... as the filter itself can also be a source of added reflections and flare.  High end (expensive) filters tend to have good coatings to "reduce" (you can't really completely eliminate the issue) the problem.  So if you're going to use a filter, keep this in mind.. you may want to test the camera in various situations with and without the filter to get a feel for how it alters the image.   I do "own" filters for my lenses... but I do not necessarily leave them on the lenses.  

A lens hood also offers a form of protection in that if you were going to bump into something with the business-end of your lens, it would hit the hood and not the glass.

B+W brand have a reputation for being top-notch thread-on filters.  Hoya actually makes quite a range of filters... it's their Hoya "Pro1" series which are their high end filters -- and they do have a very good repuation with those filters.