[nort]

I have bought a Hoya filter for my kit lens that I got on sale for 26 bucks. It was regularly 50 and on sale at London drugs. I compared and don't thing it has negatively effected my 18-55 kit lens and to me $26 is insurance on my kit lens. I have bought a tameron 28-300di that is obviously worth more than my kit lens. I got it used for $225 but as far as I can see its worth $450 and up. If I wreck it I have to buy the lens new at $550-625, where I live. Is spending $62 on a uv filter, as it's main purpos is pece of mind, too much $? I have researched and think Hoya uv pro as the best for the money in my area. Or am I overthinking all this.
It should be noted I have a boat, cabin, family vacations on trails and kids that are active so yrs I do feel I need the piece of mind in a uv filter.
Ps it's on a k50

[rbefly]

Hello Nort, welcome to the Forum!
UV and Skylight filters aren't used much with digital, they aren't needed for the optical correction they lent to film cameras and lenses. Generally, the only filters used are CPL (circular polarizing filter) and ND (neutral density and graduated ND's) for an effect that can't be duplicated in processing.
As far as lens protection, most feel that a proper lens hood does much more than a filter ever could. I agree.
Since it sounds like you already have a good-quality UV for the kit lens, go ahead and use it. But, use the hood, too.
Same for any new lens, if it makes you feel better, get a UV for each. But if they come with a hood, use that one.
You'll find many (most?) experienced digital shooters use a hood and no filter.
Very few, if any, use a filter and no hood.
And, some use both.
JMO,
Ron

[kiwi_jono]

Hi Nort,

This topic is debated frequently as it happens. Most seem to avoid filters for protection but some swear by them.
I have definitely seen image degradation with a filter on a Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (which performed noticeably better without one) but when I have tried the same tests with other lenses I have found it more difficult to see any difference. I think a lot depends on the quality of the filter (does it have good anti reflective coatings?), the type of lens (more noticeable with a high performance lens), what aperture you are using and where bright light sources are at the time. Oh and if you pixel peep a lot.

Personally I don't usually use filters, except where I am shooting in dirty environments (for example shooting greasy bubbles!) but I can see why people do use them.

Its a personal thing - if it makes you more comfortable then its worth doing but make sure you get a get a good filter. I believe there are clear filters available that are more suitable than UV (built in camera sensor glass already filters UV out).

Oh and the advice regarding hoods is good because (outdoors at least) they often make a big difference.

[nort]

Hello Nort, welcome to the Forum!
UV and Skylight filters aren't used much with digital, they aren't needed for the optical correction they lent to film cameras and lenses. Generally, the only filters used are CPL (circular polarizing filter) and ND (neutral density and graduated ND's) for an effect that can't be duplicated in processing.
As far as lens protection, most feel that a proper lens hood does much more than a filter ever could. I agree.
Since it sounds like you already have a good-quality UV for the kit lens, go ahead and use it. But, use the hood, too.
Same for any new lens, if it makes you feel better, get a UV for each. But if they come with a hood, use that one.
You'll find many (most?) experienced digital shooters use a hood and no filter.
Very few, if any, use a filter and no hood.
And, some use both.
JMO,
Ron

I didn't get a hood for my kit lens.... I would like one. Does b&h sell a white one? If not I could get a black one one but a white one would be preferred. And ya I would be one of those guys who would use a filter and a hood, I think. As fare as buying a filter for the tameron 62mm I think , is there one you would recommend specifically over a Hoya uv pro 1 at 62$ from my local camera shop ?

[davidreilly3207]

A white hood would defeat the purpose of cutting flare by reflecting light onto the lens. Here's a black one.
hood pentax 18-55 | B&H Photo Video

[DSims]

A clear-type filter is a good idea in the wind when sand, salt water, kid's drinks, etc. might get on it. The rest of the time the best protection is keeping the hood on when you may be shooting soon, and keeping the lens cap on (plus maybe the hood) the rest of the time.

The lens cap protects better than a glass filter, because the glass filter can shatter, scratching your front element. It happened to me - the filter that was supposed to be "protecting" my lens actually damaged it. Not that front element scratches will show up in your photos (unless they're really, really big and bad) but it can cause occasional flare, lowers the resale value, and is generally undesirable.

[dubiousone]

I generally run with a filter to protect the lens. You can get clear but the most common are the UV and even though digital doesn't need it I don't think it hurts anything to use them. I prefer Tiffen and Hoya but the other brands are probably just as good.

[rbefly]

Hello Nort, I forgot to include this with my first post;
UV filters test - Description of the results and summary - Lenstip.com
LensTips also has extensive tests and recommendations for CPL's and ND's. Look under 'Articles"
Ron

[FrankC]

If you get a good quality filter you shouldn't worry about any loss in image quality. I personally have filters on all my lenses and use hoods too.
While I agree the hoods add a lot of additional protection, I find myself not always using a hood in all shooting situations such as in doors or on overcast days where sun flare isn't going to happen. Because of this I use filters too.
I once tripped and fell with an EOS-1 with a 70-200f/2.8L which had a filter but no hood. The lens landed front element first onto the concrete which bent and shattered the filter. The lens and camera were fine so all I had to do is replace the filter. So I suppose once it happens to you, you tend to be a lot more cautious.

However, one does have to take into account the price of replacing the front element (and possibly the barrel too) of the lens in question vs the cost of a filter. Using some of the B+W and Heliopan filters can quickly become infeasible on consumer-grade lenses.

[OregonJim]

UV and Skylight filters aren't used much with digital, they aren't needed for the optical correction they lent to film cameras and lenses.

I disagree - they serve exactly the same purpose with digital as they did with film - to cut through haze and filter UV light. They were never used for optical correction. Besides, film-era lenses can, and most definitely are, being used with digital bodies, so the idea that shooting digital has somehow eliminated the need for these filters is moot.

Color correction filters, on the other hand, are no longer necessary with digital.

(as a side note, the sensor in your camera is NOT digital at all - it is purely analog, just like film. The analog values from each cell are converted to digital later by a conventional A/D converter.)

Using UV/skylight filters for physical lens protection is where the debate begins, be it film or digital. I have been in both camps several times, but finally settled the matter (for myself). I use good quality filters in lieu of lens caps. Lens caps take too long to remove, and you have to fumble with them to find a place to put them. By that time, the moment is gone. The filter performs the function of lens cap, and does not need to be removed.

Filters CAN aggravate flare, but you can mitigate this with the placement of your shading hand or your camera position. Lens hoods can help in that regard, too.

[OregonJim]

I believe there are clear filters available that are more suitable than UV (built in camera sensor glass already filters UV out).

The filtration in front of the sensor is primarily for infrared - opposite end of the spectrum from UV. Additional UV filtration (e.g. from a UV filter) is still very beneficial.

Are digital sensors sensitive to UV? - Photography Stack Exchange

[tibbitts]

It would seem that the manufacturers could make front elements user-replaceable and fairly inexpensive (at least compared to some of the more expensive filters), in which case the matter would be settled. Unless of course they simply made the front elements flat glass, in which case we'd be arguing whether to remove the front element entirely.

It does seem that more extreme lenses (300mm or 10mm, for example) may have performance more affected by a filter than more modest lens designs.

---------- Post added 05-29-2014 at 06:14 PM ----------

The filtration in front of the sensor is primarily for infrared - opposite end of the spectrum from UV. Additional UV filtration (e.g. from a UV filter) is still very beneficial.

Are digital sensors sensitive to UV? - Photography Stack Exchange

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that modern lenses wouldn't need UV filtration, since, if I recall correctly, even my UV Topcor lenses from the 1960s claimed to be coated in a way that eliminated the need for UV filtration. Surely modern coatings would mix a little UV-blocking in with the other dozen or so layers, no? Of course, I have no proof that Topcon's UV coating actually worked, but they claimed it did.

[SpecialK]

I didn't get a hood for my kit lens....

No filters here. Buy a hood, keep the lens capped when not actively shooting.

You can buy some White Monokote Trim Sheet or similar for the outside (peel and stick, then trim off around the edge with an xacto knife) but keep the inside black.

[OregonJim]

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that modern lenses wouldn't need UV filtration, since, if I recall correctly, even my UV Topcor lenses from the 1960s claimed to be coated in a way that eliminated the need for UV filtration. Surely modern coatings would mix a little UV-blocking in with the other dozen or so layers, no? Of course, I have no proof that Topcon's UV coating actually worked, but they claimed it did.

Sure, there is some UV blocking in even the earliest coatings. But, UV is a very strong source of radiation. Even "modern" lenses have their UV blocking properties permanently compromised the more they are exposed to UV light (especially at higher altitudes). Yet another benefit of the UV filter, therefore, is to protect the longevity of your lens coating by lessening its exposure to UV. This is a case where "more is better", just like SPF for your skin. Within reason, of course.

[abmj]

Some folks have reported that they spray-painted the outside of a black lens hood to match the camera color while leaving the inside flat black to avoid reflections. I'd also suggest looking around for filters that may not be quite as expensive as the Hoya Pro 1. For example, this looks like a decent deal if you don't already have a CPL.

Tiffen 62mm Photo Twin Pack 62PTP B&H Photo Video