[Barron]

Does anyone have any recommendations for an UV filter for a DA 50-135? I've never purchased one and really don't have any experience with them. I would actually not like to use one, but I find myself with my camera slung over my shoulder when running around the park with my son. I would use the hood for protection but it's a little too big for what I'm doing.
I would like to get the best quality filter with a budget of around $120.

[DogLover]

Does anyone have any recommendations for an UV filter for a DA 50-135? I've never purchased one and really don't have any experience with them. I would actually not like to use one, but I find myself with my camera slung over my shoulder when running around the park with my son. I would use the hood for protection but it's a little too big for what I'm doing.
I would like to get the best quality filter with a budget of around $120.

You can get an excellent filter for a lot less than that. I personally prefer clear protectors to UVs. Don't assume the most costly is the best. Check out this article: UV filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

[Adam]

These are the ones I usually get: XD67UVGB Hoya 67mm DMC PRO1 Digital Multi-Coated UV (Ultra Violet) Filter.

You can also get a regular hoya filter, but don't cut corners as putting a cheap filter on an expensive lens sort of defeats the purpose

[LowVoltage]

Hoya's Pro 1 Digital UVs are very good in terms of cost-versus-performance, and I'm guessing the new Zeta series from Kenko are pretty good as well since they're essentially re-branded Hoyas. Hoya also has a new "HD" line (high density), and although I haven't used the HD UV filters, I can tell you the circular polarizers in that line are excellent.

The "high density" denotes an exceptional durability and Hoya has made a few demonstration videos showing off their toughness. You can find them on YouTube. If the UV filters are anything like the CPLs, you'll have a nice filter in your pocket. Any of the Hoya or Kenko filters in the 67mm size will cost you 50-60% of your stated budget.

[vrrattko]

Does anyone have any recommendations for an UV filter for a DA 50-135? I've never purchased one and really don't have any experience with them. I would actually not like to use one, but I find myself with my camera slung over my shoulder when running around the park with my son. I would use the hood for protection but it's a little too big for what I'm doing.
I would like to get the best quality filter with a budget of around $120.

also check multicoated b&w filters, they're high quality but expensive filters made in germany and i really have not a single issue with using them. Sigma EX filters have also nice reputation.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Does anyone have any recommendations for an UV filter for a DA 50-135? I've never purchased one and really don't have any experience with them. I would actually not like to use one, but I find myself with my camera slung over my shoulder when running around the park with my son. I would use the hood for protection but it's a little too big for what I'm doing.
I would like to get the best quality filter with a budget of around $120.

Well, you should use the hood at all times - it's the way to get the best out of your lens and it will provide excellent protection too. A filter may protect the lens, but it may also get stuck on the lens during a serious impact and then you'll have a broken filter stuck on an expensive lens. I'm not saying to not use filters, but don't use them to avoid using a hood.

Hoya also has a new "HD" line (high density), and although I haven't used the HD UV filters, I can tell you the circular polarizers in that line are excellent.

The "high density" denotes an exceptional durability and Hoya has made a few demonstration videos showing off their toughness.

The Hoya HD are probably trying to compete with the B+W MRC (multi resistant coating). The B+W MRC is supposed to be harder than glass, so it should be harder to scratch than glass. While I never got a Hoya HD filter, I got a couple of HMC ones and they both got scratched very easily (they were also harder to clean up fingerprints from), so my enthusiasm for the Hoya brand went down a notch. I have yet to scratch a B+W filter and I have a handful of them. B+W filters also use Schott glass, which is the same glass that Zeiss uses for their lenses. A B+W filter may be made of better glass than the one it protects

[rajubhai55]

How about Nikon NC filters.They are neutral color and don't introduce any color tint

[Barron]

Thanks for all the advice on filters. I think I have what I need now to make an educated choice. I was surprised to see that testing showed that you don't have to spend a lot to get a good filter.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I was surprised to see that testing showed that you don't have to spend a lot to get a good filter.

The lenstip article is really not that useful. The only thing they reliably measure is light transmission and then they rank filters based on ability to filter out UV, which is irrelevant for digital cameras. Flare is judged in a rather subjective way and they don't examine the filters in terms of resistance to scratching, which I found to be the more important aspect in practical use (you get them for protection, right). So, in my opinion, that article is interesting, but irrelevant. People keep passing its link around as if it's some fountain of useful information on filters, but it's just academically interesting. Compare the B+W light transmission with a Hoya graph - the Hoya filters out UV better (steeper step graph), but light transmission is actually better for the B+W in the visible spectrum (flatter graph) - but because lenstip judges them on filtering UV - they rate Hoya better - that is only relevant for film cameras, not for digital.

[Barron]

The lenstip article is really not that useful. The only thing they reliably measure is light transmission and then they rank filters based on ability to filter out UV, which is irrelevant for digital cameras. Flare is judged in a rather subjective way and they don't examine the filters in terms of resistance to scratching, which I found to be the more important aspect in practical use (you get them for protection, right). So, in my opinion, that article is interesting, but irrelevant. People keep passing its link around as if it's some fountain of useful information on filters, but it's just academically interesting. Compare the B+W light transmission with a Hoya graph - the Hoya filters out UV better (steeper step graph), but light transmission is actually better for the B+W in the visible spectrum (flatter graph) - but because lenstip judges them on filtering UV - they rate Hoya better - that is only relevant for film cameras, not for digital.

Good to know. Thanks for that!

[pxpaulx]

Where have all the anti-filterites gone to? Use the hood, it blocks stray light and is ample protection (especially the 50-135mm hood, which is nice and deep).

[RonHendriks1966]

I also have some of the Hoya HD filters HOYA FILTERS - The Difference is Clear and I think they are excellent.

[Clinton]

I use Sigma EX DG UV Filters on almost all of the lenses that I own. I read an article about how they are more durable than the Hoya equivalent; and from the two Hoya filters that I've owned, this is absolutely the case. I only use other brands when I cannot get a filter form sigma in the correct size (they don't make 49mm or the really really large filters)

I also agree with the other comments here. Still use the hood. It will improve your contrast, and better protect your filter, which wont be inexpensive.

Many people here on the forums feel that a filter will add flare and degrade the quality of your photos. I think that can be the case, however my opinion is that a scratched lens will add more flare than a replaceable filter. Also, I have seen some demonstrations of pre-digital glass actually gaining a substantial contrast boost from using a UV filter.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Clint