[cinaibur]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I'm looking to get some filters for my DA 18-55 kit lens on my k-m. I found this Hoya kit that comes with the UV, circular polarizer, and warming filter.

Hoya | 52mm Introductory Filter Kit | GIK52GB | B&H Photo Video

I'm really only interested in the UV and polarizer but I thought the extra couldn't hurt. Am I right in thinking these fit my lens? Is this a good buy or should I just buy better individual filters? I don't really wan't to spend $50 for a Hoya Pro1 UV filter.

[Ole]

Those filters will fit.

However, I would recommend to buy multi-coated filters to reduce flare from the filter. The filters you mention are not multi-coated.

[cinaibur]

where can i get both a UV and polarizer that are multicoated for under $50?

[Ash]

You may have to shop around for the best deal for these filters.
Hoya's multi-coated varieties all have 'HMC' in their descriptions.
Other companies' filters should have MC as well somewhere in theirs, depending on the company.
If money's tight, I'd suggest not having a filter on the lens unless you need to polarise the image - so only get the polarising filter and leave the UV filter behind - unless the UV filter is of good quality it will degrade the quality of your images significantly.

[cinaibur]

i was planning on leaving the UV on permanently as a lens protector as well. bad idea?

[mischivo]

i was planning on leaving the UV on permanently as a lens protector as well. bad idea?

I recommend getting the polarizer and not bothering with the others. UV filters are useless, and the effect of warming filters can easily be simulated within software. I also speculate that if your camera is set to automatic white balancing, the effects of the warming filter will be filtered away in software anyway... but someone should confirm this, as I'm unfamiliar with warming filters and basing this idea on hypothesis.

Click the link to get the best circular polarizer Hoya offers in 52mm thread for under 50 dollars. If you get lucky, this place will accidentally undercharge you by 90 dollars, just as they did with me. LOL.

[MSM]

i was planning on leaving the UV on permanently as a lens protector as well. bad idea?

Hi Cinaibur. On any given day, this question can get ugly, fast. I won't touch it. I personally have sided with the no filter as it adds more glass and flare issues amongst others. I did come across a like at another site to LensTip.com - lens review, lenses reviews, lens specification - Lenstip.com which has a nice review of both UV and Polarizer lens from various makes and prices. Intestingly, the most expensive was not the best. There are some good bargains out there.

[LeDave]

i was planning on leaving the UV on permanently as a lens protector as well. bad idea?

This is what I do for my kit lens on my K-m as well. I am using a Hoya S-HMC UV Filter 52mm. I've never shot my K-m without a the filter before so I don't know if there will be any differences. From my knowledge I gained here, I think the differences would be too little to be noticeable with that filter.I avoid single coated filters even though they are cheap for the price, I hear they are glare hoggers.

This is the one I use, you might want to consider it!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/23738-REG/Hoya_X52UV_52mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Super.html

[Marc Sabatella]

Hi Cinaibur. On any given day, this question can get ugly, fast.

True enough. I'd simply suggest searching this forum, or dpreivw, or the web in general, for existing discussions of the topic. There have been probably several hundred thousands such discussions, pretty much all of which boil down to one side sayingthe filter will cost money and hurt IS while the other side sayign they've never noticed and difference in IQ and the feel better knowing there is a slightly reduced chance of something bad happening to their lens. For my money, an insurance policy is a cheaper way of protecting a lens against way more bad things than a filter ever could.

[flippedgazelle]

I'm also in the "no UV filter" camp. A lens hood provides much protection for the lens.

[crossmr]

unless the UV filter is of good quality it will degrade the quality of your images significantly.

Since I'm in Korea, and all the shops are in Korean which is not my native language, I've had to hunt a lot to try and find stuff. Realizing I should put something on my lens to protect it from myself, I quickly looked for a UV Filter. It cost the equivalent of around $1.30 USD. Brand is Arona, never heard of them before..but it let me put something on the glass for the time being while I figure out what is good and for sale around here.

I took some shots yesterday in a park and didn't really notice any difference at all.
So I decided to fire off a couple indoor comparison shots with the UV filter. These are crops, but at 1:1, I just wanted to cut them down so they weren't like 3 MB.
This is probably as cheap a UV filter as you can get, and here is the difference:

[dcmsox2004]

hi.... since i'm a dumpster diver by hobby... i'd try b+w filters on ebay... also heliopan as well, the hoya super multi coated filters are aok as well..
52mm uv b w, great deals on Cameras Photo, New on eBay!
the b+w has is made of brass, and it is very easy to remove... aluminum constructed filters tend to be a bit sticky in unscrewing..... but maybe it's just me......
i too use a lens hood ALL the time... to reduce flare and to protect the front of the lens.....
most of the time i use a uv filter, and have taken pics with and without, and to my eye, can not see much difference..... give it a try,

[CWyatt]

It's not just UV filters, unless ANY filter is a very good quality one it will degrade your images. Do not use cheap filters! Decent multi-coated filters are not too much more, especially considering the price of good glass that a cheap filter will ruin.

Personally I have NOT used UV filters. But I have seen evidence of some of the world's greatest photojournalists using them in unusual environments and therefore would recommend them if you expose your lens to tear gas and flying glass!

I have often used Hoya Pro1 circular polarisers. Good circular polarisers are very useful. I use them often if I don't need the extra stops a polarising filter soaks up. Good luck.

[Marc Sabatella]

I took some shots yesterday in a park and didn't really notice any difference at all.
So I decided to fire off a couple indoor comparison shots with the UV filter.

The outdoor shots would be more likely to show the degradation, it seems to me, in terms of making certain types of artifacts much more common. Some shots you wouldn't see it at all; some it would be completely obvious (extra reflections, etc). Indoors, those sorts of reflections aren't the issue, but you might notice a drop in contrast given the right subject matter, and you'd also be likely to notice the AF working more slowly and having more trouble locking.

Not that I have test images to prove this; I just wanted to observe that one test shot without any obvious degradation doesn't prove there isn't any, just as one smoker who lives to be 100 doesn't prove there isn't any link between smoking and lung disease.

[cinaibur]

link

Hoya | 52mm Ultraviolet UV(0) Super Multi-Coated (S-HMC) | X52UV

I odered the circular polarizer mischivo linked, and the UV filter LeDave linked. Both should be here. I will test the UV filter when it arrives and if it adversely affects my quality I won't use it.