Need 77mm UV filter advice.

[Tykimeister]

I need to purchase a UV filter for my EF 17-40mm F/4L USM. Do most of you use Hoya filters? I need something cheep that will basically protect my lens and not interfere with image quality at all. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Ty

[D.Rodgers]

I removed my uv filters they do nothing but protect the lens, but it seems they cause more grief with scratches and dirt then it is worth.(buy a cap)
Hoya are good i swear by their polarizers.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Tykimeister

I need to purchase a UV filter for my EF 17-40mm F/4L USM. Do most of you use Hoya filters? I need something cheep that will basically protect my lens and not interfere with image quality at all. Any suggestions?

Hi Tykimeister!

...suggestion one: if you are shooting digital, you probably do not 'need' an UV filter for the UV, but for 'protection', Canon makes optical glass clear 'Protect' filters that do just that, protect without distortions and with a minimum of extra reflections (flare!). They are about half the price of a good UV filter...

...suggestion two: if you are shooting film, then you do need an UV filter: a Hoya Pro or a B+W Pro UV filter is IMO advisable to get the same quality grade filter as the lens is... ...a lesser quality filter than the lens *will* degrade image quality...

...*my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[cyclohexane]

I need something cheep that will basically protect my lens and not interfere with image quality at all

That doesn't exist. You can get cheap protection, but not cheap protection that doesn't interfere with your image quality. Even the best filters I've used, made by B+W, affect the image, though the difference is negligible unless you include light sources in your frame.

The lens hood and cap are far better protection. Yes, you can't shoot with the lens cap on, but you'd be surprised at how durable the front elements are...

if you are shooting film, then you do need an UV filter

Most modern film stocks are no longer significantly sensitive to UV light. Even Thom Hogan says it here. The link's also not a bad read on one guy's take on filters.

I shoot C-41 color negative with "naked" lenses; when printing my own I see no blue cast or haze associated with UV light.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Most modern film stocks are no longer significantly sensitive to UV light. Even Thom Hogan says it here. The link's also not a bad read on one guy's take on filters.

...I stand corrected...

thanks for the info!

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[cyclohexane]

Obviously, your mileage may vary.

I've heard of some issues at high altitude, but I personally have not had any issues shooting color negative film of any kind, consumer or otherwise.

[Max@Home]

(Totally )

Hey, nice new Avatar!

...is that Athena ??



Max@Home

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...is that Athena ??

(...continuing the -ness...)

[walter23]

Originally Posted by Tykimeister

I need something cheep ... not interfere with image quality at all. Any suggestions?

Yeah, I'd suggest nothing at all. It's free, and will let your lens work as it should. Crappy filters reduce your lens' sharpness, contrast, and add flare issues (as noted). You didn't buy a top of the line L lens just to go kill the fantastic contrast from those top notch lens coatings with a cheap filter. Just get out and use your lens, mishaps are rare, and you should be careful with your gear and keep it padded except when you're using it anyway.

[Tykimeister]

Thanks everyone for the advice and such. Since the quality of the cheaper UV filters isn't that great, I think I will just be extra careful (and use the hood) tell I have some extra money to buy a quality UV filter (or a different filter, for that matter). I don't think it will be much of a problem, but I thought I would just ask to see if there was any no-brainer filters out there I should get.
Thanks,
Ty

[richardpcrowe]

I use UV filters (occasionally) when I need to protect my lenses. Since I have some of the best lenses made (17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a bunch of "L" glass) I use the best filters available in order not to degrade the quality of the imagery which I have paid good money to obtain. I use the best UV filter when I feel it is neccessary to protect the lens from damage from such things as flying dust or debris or water spray. When ever I use a CPL, it is the best quality. I will most often use a filter to protect wide angle lenses since hoods do not protect them as well because hoods for those lenses are usually more shallow that hoods for longer focal length lenses.

The standard recommendation is to purchase the very best filter available such as the B&W or Heliopan (I personally use B&W). However, I do not neccessarily consider that as always the correct approach. As an example, if you are shooting with a lens that is worth less than a hundred dollars, it is rediculous to spend fifty to a hundred dollars for a filter to protect it. Your imagery is not that great to begin ith and if you upgrade to a better lens, you will most likely need a larger diameter filter since most upgraded lenses are larger in diameter than the kit types.

For less expensive lenses, I recommend a lens hood and care not to damage the front element rather than a UV filter.

[Mr Mikey]

I don't believe the cost of a lens is a factor in purchasing a filter, not everyone can afford "the best" out there, I think the purpose of this discussion is to protect the lens that you have. Just because my lens only costs 900 bucks does not mean I don't want to protect it.
I always used the UV filter on my film lens. I started using them on my DSLR but after reading some threads here about the need for them, I removed them. In some cases I have noticed an increase in sharpness without them.
I used HOYA filters which depending on which ones you buy can be expensive. I don't think anyone will dispute the quality of B&W filters, but the cost is prohibitive for the average person.
I now can spend my money on the ND's & Polorazing filters. I do use the lens hood as well as the lens cap for protection as well as a good bag when carrying my equipment.
Good luck in your decision.

[pop]

I have a slightly different reason to always use a filter.
My old Minolta slipped from my shoulder and hit a marble slab. Left a nice dent in the filter ring.
So I don't care about loss of quality as long as my lenses are protected somewhat.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by pop

I have a slightly different reason to always use a filter.
My old Minolta slipped from my shoulder and hit a marble slab. Left a nice dent in the filter ring.
So I don't care about loss of quality as long as my lenses are protected somewhat.

A lens hood would provide that same level of protection with no risk of image quality degradation.

[walter23]

Originally Posted by pop

I have a slightly different reason to always use a filter.
My old Minolta slipped from my shoulder and hit a marble slab. Left a nice dent in the filter ring.
So I don't care about loss of quality as long as my lenses are protected somewhat.

I dropped a lens once and the polarizer I had on it saved it from certain destruction. The polarizer glass broken into pieces but the front element was completely unscathed.

I still don't use "protective" filters though; I just try extra hard not to drop a lens. If it happens, well, it happens. I'll use filters when I need them for filtration, but not otherwise.