02-26-2013 06:57 PM
Is it worth the higher price for a UV filter, do they make that much of a difference with a higher quality L lens? What is a fair price to pay on a Quality UV filter? I see them for as high as $300 plus.
02-26-2013 07:09 PM
Many people including me don't use them. Many feel they lower image quality & when you consider the cost to outfit every lens you own with a high quality filter vs what it MIGHT cost to replace a damaged front element there's some logic to the wait & see if it ever happens aspect of things. Many just rely on the lens hood to be the protector if dropped.
02-26-2013 11:12 PM
Definitely two schools of thought on using filters. It seems to be about 50-50, It's really a personal preference. I am one that uses UV filters on all my lens for protection but mostly cleanabiltiy. A good quality coating on the filter makes it very easy to clean. All of my lens have B&W MRC UV filters. The 77mm is about $85, smaller a little less, and the 82mm jumps over $100.
As cicopo mentioned, your lens hood might provide adequate protection and you can avoid adding a filter. I always use a hood anyway just for flare issues. Do keep in mind that some lens do require a filter to complete the sealing such as the EF 16-35 II. Check your lens manual. Also, If I'm using a CPL (circular polarizing filter), I remove my UV. I don't stack filters.
Whatever you do, don't skimp and put a crappy filter on a HQ lens.
Here's some discussion on the pros and cons of using UV filters
03-01-2013 01:57 PM
I use B&W UV MRC filters on all my lenses. Good protection and No need to worry about wiping my lens off with my shirt or pants in a tight spot.
03-02-2013 08:10 PM - edited 03-02-2013 08:11 PM
You mentioned Canon L lenses. If you really read the little manual that comes with a lens, you'll notice that Canon indicates that you need to add a filter to complete the weather sealing on some of the L lenses. If they make one in the filter size I need I usually pick up a Nikon clear glass filter (I don't believe Canon makes clear which I guess is a non-filter filter). The UV filter used to be referred to as a UV-Haze filter because it can reduce haze in some landscape shots. The negative effect is that it can also reduce the blueness of a blue sky a little...
As for affecting the image quality, not really unless you start stacking them or use low quality filters that aren't multi-coated to keep flare under control (remember you've added two glass surfaces to the front of the lens). Also, stay away from cheap ND and polarizing filters...
03-04-2013 09:16 AM
I am in the, yes I use a high quality filter on every lens I own. I use Canon brand filters on all my Canon lens and I have a Sigma brand filter on my Siggy.
I don't know what a person would have to do to tell if an "L" lens had a filter on to or not. Under normal average conditions I believe it to be impossible. If there is a difference I can't see it.
Is anybody going to try and tell me an $85 dollar filter on a $2000+ "L", or even a $1000, lens is a bad investment because of what might or might not happen? I consider the filter cheap insurance.
03-19-2013 08:16 AM