Author Topic: UV Filters (Read 5305 times)

ichiro17 · « **on:** May 14, 2007, 08:52 »

Hi everyone,

I know I must be getting annoying with my product questions, but I'm just wondering if its necessary to get a UV Slim filter for the 17-40 f/4L Canon wide-angle zoom. It will be used on 350D and 30D cameras.

madelaide · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2007, 16:02 »

I'm curious about this now. I'm also buying a XTi and a 17-40 f/4L and I never thought a slim UV filter even existed. I believe howver the PL is a bigger problem?

Regards,
Adelaide

CJPhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2007, 07:22 »

I wouldn't think a slim filter is needed for any crop camera except the ultra wides.

I use a normal filter on my 17-85 and that uses a smaller diameter (67 vs 77 for the 17-40)

Opla · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2007, 08:04 »

I had a normal UV filter on my 20d and never had any iussues. Still have to test it on my 5d now though.

kosmikkreeper · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2007, 17:09 »

I removed all my UV filters from my lenses when I realized just how badly it affected flaring and image quality (and I had the best UVs possible).

Just my 2 cents

hatman12 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2007, 17:20 »

I agree with that completely Kosmik; I don't have any filters on any of my lenses.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2007, 05:50 »

Quote from: kosmikkreeper on May 15, 2007, 17:09

I removed all my UV filters from my lenses when I realized just how badly it affected flaring and image quality (and I had the best UVs possible).

I removed my UV filter from my main lens when it smashed (following a small drop).

Most of the time my photos are taken when i travel so I prefer to have a "cheap" peice of glass in front to make cleaning less of a stress. If I was in a controled environment, there is no way I would use a filter.

Opla · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2007, 07:02 »

According to its manual, the 17-40 needs a filter in order to be water resistent. So when I'm outside, I mostly use a filter on it to prevent water, dust and damaging of the front-element.

Grizzlybear · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:44 »

UV and skylight filters are a total waste of time and money,and as for protecting a lens, if the glass filter gets broken, it will more than likely scratch the front lens element, so that's no excuse for these filters, a lens hood is better for protection. Don't let the camera shop salesman let you believe that you need one of these filters. Regards, grizzlybear

ichiro17 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:04 »

Interesting. I'm really scared now. I don't want to buy them if they are useless. Especially since its extra money I could spend elsewhere.

Maybe I'll buy and use sparingly, which defeats the purpose.

Thanks for the information.

Joseph

GeoPappas · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:36 »

When I first got into photography (over 25 years ago), I bought UV/skylight filters to protect all of my lenses. But over the years, I have removed the filters from my lenses and the (filters) now sit in a box unused (for quite a while). While there is some truth in the fact that a filter will protect your lens (from a scratch), that is a risk that you will need to weigh. I have never dropped a lens or camera, nor have I ever scratched a lens, so I seem to be pretty careful with my equipment. If someone is clumsy, it might be more worth it for them.

If I were to order a new lens today, I would forego purchasing a filter to protect it. The only filter that I find useful at this time (with digital cameras) is a polarizer. Every other filter can be replicated by image editing software (Photoshop, PaintShop, etc.).

But as the saying goes, this is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

wysiwyg_foto · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:37 »

Here's an experience I have had...I ALWAYS use a UV filter AND a lens hood. Always.

On December 22 we had a pretty big Blizzard here in Colorado. I was walking the pedestrian mall on 16th street taking pictures of the blizzard with a 70-200 and a 24-70 and a 20d with the accessory battery pack. I switched lenses and was walking with the 70-200 on the camera.

I went to cross the street so I could try to frame a shot with the snow falling and a 'Denver' sign on mall. I got about half way across the street and my feet went out from under me in some ice. I landed on my knee. My camera landed about 3 feet away from me, then slid into the curb all the time packing snow INTO the lens hood and against the filter. I was hurting pretty bad and decided to go home.

I got home and dried everything out. The battery pack for some reason wouldn't work any more on that body - but it worked on the 30d so I just swapped them out. The 70-200 was unharmed. The lens hood has some scratched plastic where it slid on the pavement. The filter knocked loose from the metal ring and scratched where the snow packed into the hood. The lens itself is still in perfect shape.

My filter and my lens hood saved me a repair job. That's all I know.

Here's some images from the trip

I've used a standard UV on my 17-40 with a 20d and a 30d (both 1.6x crop factor cameras) and haven't had an issue.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:45 »

Does anyone have a site link that breaks down the differences? Has anyone does any sort of scientific(?) tests to show the differences?

Vally · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:14 »

I have dropped my camera twice onto concrete from a reasonable height. The most recent time it was attached to a brand new 18-200 Nikon VR lens. Both times it landed lens down and the UV filter whilst cracking itself, protected the lens.

My investment of about £30 in UV filters protected several hundred pounds worth of equipment and I would always buy one with a new lens. Maybe I'm just clumsy though!

CJPhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2007, 11:10 »

Quote from: Vally on May 17, 2007, 10:14

I have dropped my camera twice onto concrete from a reasonable height. The most recent time it was attached to a brand new 18-200 Nikon VR lens. Both times it landed lens down and the UV filter whilst cracking itself, protected the lens.

how do you know the lens would have broken if the UV filter was not there? It appears that th UV filter is a lot more flimsy that the lens.

Having said that, I intend to replace the UV filter I broke in my next purchase. Traveling to any dusty place, I would still prefer to have a "protection" filter on.

Vally · « **Reply #15 on:** May 17, 2007, 14:00 »

Hi CJ,

I don't know that the lens would have broken but it's not an experiment I'd like to repeat at £500 a lens. On the second bounce off the concrete it bent the metal on the hotshoe so badly it had to be bent back into shape before a speed light would go on!

Having the filter on makes me feel a lot safer even if it doesn't do much.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: UV Filters (Read 5305 times)

ichiro17

madelaide

CJPhoto

Opla

kosmikkreeper

hatman12

CJPhoto

Opla

Grizzlybear

ichiro17

GeoPappas

wysiwyg_foto

ichiro17

Vally

CJPhoto

Vally

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors