[stevejo]

recently bought a K&F Concept 58MM UV Filter to go on my new HD DA 55-300 ED PLM WR RE - however the outer diameter of the ring is thicker than normal and with this fitted, you cannot fit the lens hood. Replaced with a Kenko Slim filter which was fine.

Not sure if it still the norm to fit a UV filter but I always do anyway.

[jatrax]

Not sure if it still the norm to fit a UV filter but I always do anyway.

Generally a UV filter serves no purpose on digital. If you want the filter as lens protection rather than UV light modification as used on film then get a good quality, multi-coated protection filter.

I have never used UV or protection filters and personally do not feel they serve any purpose. However, if they make you feel more confident about your lenses' safety good quality ones don't do significant harm in most situations.

Using UV or protection filters is an oft debated topic with no resolution. I think it best to do whatever you feel comfortable with.

[tibbitts]

Generally a UV filter serves no purpose on digital. If you want the filter as lens protection rather than UV light modification as used on film then get a good quality, multi-coated protection filter.

I have never used UV or protection filters and personally do not feel they serve any purpose. However, if they make you feel more confident about your lenses' safety good quality ones don't do significant harm in most situations.

Using UV or protection filters is an oft debated topic with no resolution. I think it best to do whatever you feel comfortable with.

For whatever reason sometimes UV filters are less expensive, and often more available on the pre-owned market as well, vs. "protection" filters. I don't know that anyone has established any negative to using them on digital vs. protection filters so I'd go with whatever seems like the best value.

It was helpful that the OP posted about that quirk of that one model, though. It reminds me of trying to find a polarizer for a 28-55 Canon FD, in which the front of the inner barrel held the filter and had to slide into the outer barrel during zooming. Canon made a filter that fit, but some of their filters appeared to be sourced from different manufacturers in different countries. Some fit, and some didn't.

[jatrax]

For whatever reason sometimes UV filters are less expensive, and often more available on the pre-owned market as well, vs. "protection" filters.

True. I assume because everyone had a UV filter on when using film but the used market has boxes of old UV ones. I've got a stack of them acquired with used lenses over the years.

I'm not sure if a UV filter modifies exposure or white balance in any way or not. I think it would be minor even it did. The critical thing to my thinking is that if you do use a filter to use a good quality multi-coated one, UV or protection. Putting cheap glass in front of a high quality lens cannot possibly be a good idea.

[UncleVanya]

Bear in mind that while good filters are mostly optically neutral to lenses... there are quite a number of long lens shooters who found that they had to remove them or their image quality suffered. These are people shooting the highest quality long lenses typically. On the 55-300 the absolute resolution limits on your sensor with that glass may fall below the threshold that the filter may impose - in which case you won’t see any difference under normal use.

I suggest a couple of tripod mounted outdoor shots with far away detail and some closer shots. See if detail and or focus accuracy is negatively impacted with or without the filter with your lens and camera combination. You may have to pixel peep to see a difference and as such that may not matter in the real world. But you could find it makes a big difference...

[BigMackCam]

recently bought a K&F Concept 58MM UV Filter to go on my new HD DA 55-300 ED PLM WR RE - however the outer diameter of the ring is thicker than normal and with this fitted, you cannot fit the lens hood. Replaced with a Kenko Slim filter which was fine.

Not sure if it still the norm to fit a UV filter but I always do anyway.

Bear in mind that while good filters are mostly optically neutral to lenses... there are quite a number of long lens shooters who found that they had to remove them or their image quality suffered. These are people shooting the highest quality long lenses typically. On the 55-300 the absolute resolution limits on your sensor with that glass may fall below the threshold that the filter may impose - in which case you won’t see any difference under normal use.

I've noticed an impact on image quality even on a modest lens such as the Sigma 18-300 at the longer end.

That said, I've had generally good results using Hoya HMC UV(c) slim frame filters, and in fact I use one on my HD 55-300 (screw drive version) for protection if I'm at the beach or other environments where the front element might get dirt, sand, grit or other contaminants on it. There is a tiny impact on sharpness, but it really is tiny. On the occasions where I feel a protective filter is justified, I'm more than happy with the image quality...

[tibbitts]

True. I assume because everyone had a UV filter on when using film but the used market has boxes of old UV ones. I've got a stack of them acquired with used lenses over the years.

I'm not sure if a UV filter modifies exposure or white balance in any way or not. I think it would be minor even it did. The critical thing to my thinking is that if you do use a filter to use a good quality multi-coated one, UV or protection. Putting cheap glass in front of a high quality lens cannot possibly be a good idea.

I can tell there is a slight cast to some of my UV filters, although with the newer/better ones I don't notice that. I do agree about the multi-coating. I do detect a difference in ease of cleaning with some of the newer "nano" coated filters, and for me that's almost enough reason to use them, since even with hoods (that I almost always use) I'm always getting finger prints or rain on the glass surfaces. Also many of my lenses are weather-sealed so the filter may help a little in that regard vs. having rain drip down into where the glass meets the lens body.

I'm suspicious that a couple of my Hoya filters are counterfeit, since they don't appear to have the usual color in surface reflections that I'd expect from multi-coated filters. Maybe someone else who has those can comment. I have other cheaper brands of "MC" filters that similarly appear to me to not be multi-coated, but for the most part I don't use those filters any longer. Of course my plastic square filters aren't multi-coated, but buying those in multi-coated glass would be seriously expensive and I haven't quite made that leap yet.

I had a recent-era Vivitar-branded polarizer that clearly degraded the image from my Tamron 70-300 - even the notorious purple fringing wasn't sharp!

[Michail_P]

Hoya filters are quite good and inexpensive. Beware of the fakes though. It’s not unusual for the inner and outer threads to be a little uneven.

[Paul the Sunman]

I was cured of using UV filters when I discovered the one I had on my DA 55-300 was what was causing the weird striations in the bokeh I had been trying to understand for some time. The best place for a UV filter is the bin.

[aslyfox]

ah, the filter wars have erupted once again

I use UV filters to protect the outer glass and the threads of my lens

I remove them, along with the lens cap before taking photos

and yes, the fence I am sitting on can be quite painful at times

[pepperberry farm]

I keep a stack of them for shooting:





but not to shoot through...

[clackers]

I was cured of using UV filters when I discovered the one I had on my DA 55-300 was what was causing the weird striations in the bokeh I had been trying to understand for some time. The best place for a UV filter is the bin.

A number of forum members over the year have found the image quality problem they reported disappeared when they flung their UV filter in the dumpster.

Whatever physical protection it offers, a cheap lens cap does better.

[ramseybuckeye]

I was cured of using UV filters when I discovered the one I had on my DA 55-300 was what was causing the weird striations in the bokeh I had been trying to understand for some time. The best place for a UV filter is the bin.

Similar experience, when I got the DA 55-300 (ten years ago) I put a new UV filter on it. I thought the lens was a dud the first few time shooting it, then I read some threads here on the forum, took it off and i was so relieved. It was a Kenko filter which I'm sure was counterfeit, but why put something there that can only cause degradation? I use a hood all of the time which give the lens a nice shock absorber for impact.

[UncleVanya]

ah, the filter wars have erupted once again

I use UV filters to protect the outer glass and the threads of my lens

I remove them, along with the lens cap before taking photos

and yes, the fence I am sitting on can be quite painful at times

Understand that I am not saying they are or are not image altering - I have my opinion - I’m suggesting that trying it with and without on a lens is the only way to determine the impact and if it is something that the photographer would notice.

Also if you plan to remove it every time you shoot - I’d say you should add a magnetic filter adapter.

[DWS1]

The only time I use a UV filter is around the ocean with a lot of salt spray or in very sandy and windy areas. Sand and salt propelled by wind can destroy smooth glass surfaces.