Which UV Filter to get?

RoRoCo · Jun 2, 2006

OK... First off...I am not a huge fan of putting any additional glass in front of nice lenses (outside of ND or PL filters), but my dilemma is that I am getting married in Cancun and I fear potential damage from flying sand and sea mist.

I would rather have a <$50 lens hurt that the lens of a $1,000 fixed lens camera.

So...I would like to get a nice UV lens that I can use to help protect my camera. I don't want to spend too much on it though and I really don't want it to hurt the picture quality.

I have found these 67mm lenses at Amazon at the price below:

Tiffen - $9.95
Hoya - $14.95
B+W - $36.95
B+W multicoat - $49.95
Sony - $49.99

Although I would love to get the Sony for the brand match or get the B+W for the quality...is it worth it?

Any thoughts on these or any other UV/Lens protectors?

Thanks guys

motcon · Jun 2, 2006

which tiffen is it? the 812 or haze-1 ?

RoRoCo · Jun 2, 2006

Don't really know... it is this one

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJK/sr=1-1/qid=1149270010/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6014648-6718467?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=photo"]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJK/sr=1-1/qid=1149270010/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6014648-6718467?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=photo[/ame]

motcon · Jun 2, 2006

ok. i just dug this up for you:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/

that should help.

every filter will degrade image quality in some way. all said and done, there is negligible difference in mtf ratings between the uv filters. the real differences come in how much uv each blocks and what other effects each may have (warming, contrast, etc.). unless you'll be 10,000 feet above sea level (which cancun obviously is not), you needn't worry much about severe uv.

there are, of course, cruddy manufacturers, but the list you have is pretty solid. i'm of the opinion that the b&w (schneider) is misleading in that a higher price point should translate to better quality, but the reality is that in terms of mtf, it isn't any better. it's better at absorbing uv rays, yes, but mexico is as flat as can be. the highest you may get in mexico is at the Mayan ruins in Chichaniza.

i use tiffen and am quite happy. the link that you provided is a tiffen uv, not the 812 (which is a uv, but warming).

as far as brand matching, well.....i don't think your lens will much care, let alone realize a difference.

RoRoCo · Jun 2, 2006

Thanks motcon. Great intel! I was actually less concerned about the UV aspect of these lenses and more concerned about putting an additional barrier between my Ziess lens and the elements in Cancun.

That is mainly why I am trying to stay cheap, but I would not mind spending a bit more if one of these lenses is better at preserving the quality of the main glass.

IOW... I am not trying to block UV rays... I am trying to protect my camera's glass with the absolute most transparent solution...

Thanks

DocFrankenstein · Jun 2, 2006

B+W multicoated is the best IMO

I wouldn't worry about the lens too much. Just wipe it off if it gets splashed. It's a "point and shootish" camera and in 2-3 years you'll want to replace it anyways.

Throwing additional 50 bucks on it isn't worth it.

RoRoCo · Jun 2, 2006

DocFrankenstein said:
B+W multicoated is the best IMO

I wouldn't worry about the lens too much. Just wipe it off if it gets splashed. It's a "point and shootish" camera and in 2-3 years you'll want to replace it anyways.

Throwing additional 50 bucks on it isn't worth it.

"point and shootish"? I know it is a fixed lens camera, but it is much closer to a DSLR than a P&Ser.

I just think 50 dollars is not too much to protect a $1,000 camera.

motcon · Jun 2, 2006

protecting a lens, particularly one that is fixed, is important. it may be a fixed lens camera, but it's hardly a disposable with a plastic 10 lpmm lens.

i made a correction to my post. i originally typed 'mfd' (minimum focus distance) as i was thinking, while i was typing the reply, about a macro shot that i did. it should read 'mtf'. it has been corrected.

Rob · Jun 3, 2006

I use a Hoya 77mm skylight on my 100-400 for the reasons you've listed. I don't really see any difference with it or without it, so I'd say go for the $15 option.

Rob

DocFrankenstein · Jun 3, 2006

RoRoCo said:
"point and shootish"? I know it is a fixed lens camera, but it is much closer to a DSLR than a P&Ser.

I just think 50 dollars is not too much to protect a $1,000 camera.

then B+W would be a good choice. A few years down the road it will be worth more than the camera.

RoRoCo · Jun 3, 2006

DocFrankenstein said:
then B+W would be a good choice. A few years down the road it will be worth more than the camera.

Better worth less a few year down the line then worth nothing is the lens gets damages in a few months.

Bitter much against Sony products DocF?

DocFrankenstein · Jun 3, 2006

RoRoCo said:
Better worth less a few year down the line then worth nothing is the lens gets damages in a few months.

You can't really damage the lens by scratching. Even if there are scratches - they won't affect picture quality. Put a few hairs on the front element - if you could see any difference in image quality, you have a very good eye.

Bitter much against Sony products DocF?

Not at all. They make very nice video cameras, probably the best in the world.

With cameras they're lagging behind. Just because the sensor is large, doesn't mean it's an SLR.

You won't be able to open your lens completely with 1/2000 and ISO 160
Shooting action... low light AF... shutter lag... etc

Once you get your hands on an SLR you'll change your opinion.

RoRoCo · Jun 3, 2006

DocFrankenstein said:
You can't really damage the lens by scratching. Even if there are scratches - they won't affect picture quality. Put a few hairs on the front element - if you could see any difference in image quality, you have a very good eye.

I must apologize, but I just don't understand that logic. A scratch will refract the light entering in the camera much more so than a hair. It almost sounds like you would rather shoot with a scratch on the lens over shooting with an additional element in the front of the camera.

As for the R1..I never said it was a SLR, but for $800 (what I paid for it), I would only be able to afford a really low end DSLR. The Ziess lens is top class glass and almost worth the 800 dollars I paid for the entire camera.

I can not afford a 1500 dollar (minimum) comperable SLR setup and I do not believe it is nessesary for me to learn and enjoy the trade.

Of course the camera has limitations, but so do they all after all.

Sorry to change this thread into a whose equipment is better for whom... I really just wanted to get feedback on lenses to protect my camera.

BTW...I went with the Tiffen... I do not plan on keeping it on at all times so it should do the trick.

Thanks all!

2framesbelowzero · Jun 3, 2006

RoRoCo said:
As for the R1..I never said it was a SLR, but for $800 (what I paid for it), I would only be able to afford a really low end DSLR. The Ziess lens is top class glass and almost worth the 800 dollars I paid for the entire camera.

I rate this camera after using a friends a few months ago. It really has a superb lens.