UV Filters

fuzed · 22-06-2007, 3:16 PM

what do you guys think in regards to these, I've got a new 17-55 f/2.8 IS canon lens and need a UV filter for it, theres so many to choose from I don't know whether it would be worth spending a little more and getting a good one or a cheaper one will do the same job, has anyone ever done any reviews on these things?

(its a 77mm one I need, if anyone's got a spare knocking around let me know)

cheersssss

h4rri · 22-06-2007, 3:44 PM

You can get a Hoya Pro for £25 off eBay and to be honest it's not worth bothering with the cheap ones. I probably do have a spare Jessops 77mm knocking about but as it drops at least one stop when added I would be reluctant to hand it over

After seeing the results of cheap ones next to the better ones I wouldn't go back. You have an expensive bit of glass so stick the best you can afford on it

fuzed · 22-06-2007, 4:08 PM

cheers harri... thats what I needed to know... The hoya pro's a good one then, I have a few hoya filters, shame I dont have any that fit!

Strobe · 22-06-2007, 4:39 PM

Ditto, on the avoiding the cheapo ones. I have a cheapo Jessops uv filter and it's a shoddy piece of plastic that's a bugger to keep clean. The polarizer I use is a good quality Hoya Pro and is vastly superior. www.onestop-digital.com have really good filter prices.

fuzed · 22-06-2007, 5:22 PM

cheers guys, so you'd all consider the hoya to be a good filter... any others to think of or stick to this one?

grantsteve · 22-06-2007, 5:39 PM

B+W are highly regarded, as are Lee .... if you've got the cash!

I'm a Hoya Pro fan myself. One Stop Digital are the best value I've found and they'll deliver nearly as quick as most UK stockists.

horribleman · 22-06-2007, 5:50 PM

Or if you wanna try a cheapy and see how it is, you could get a HAMA one for about 6 quid off peebay. If it's no good just relist it.

dave_bass5 · 22-06-2007, 6:36 PM

Another vote for the Hoya Digital Pro 1 UV.
I have two and apart from the difficulty in cleaning them they are very high quality.
got both mine from onestop but picstop.co.uk have them for £43 which i think is a bit cheaper than some uk places.

And dont forget to get a hood. and get it off ebay not from a shop. You can pick up the Canon one for around £20 off ebay. May or may not be genuine but i cant tell the difference.

allymac123 · 22-06-2007, 6:58 PM

I'd personally recommend a hood over a UV filter. Personally (and in a few personal experinces) the hood does a better job at protecting the lens as whole. It also has the added benefit of stopping stray light entering the lens.

My experience was when I had my camera ~6ft high on a tripod above some rocks and then I managed to kick the tripod (don't ask). This sent the camera with 17-55 F2.8 IS attached straight for the ground. The lens hood bent, as that is what it landed on, and thus absorbed a major propotion of the imapct and everything was fine and dandy. (thank f***, although I do have it all fully insured). I was also shooting with a ND8 filter on at the time (not a scratch on it) but I do believe had I been without the lens hood the entire combo would likely be broken.

Double protection is probably best but remember a lens hood can't be detremental to pic quality but putting any glass infront of a lens will cause a change.

fuzed · 22-06-2007, 7:10 PM

I didn't think about the lens hood... could be a better option, I'm just wanting to try and keep the lens clean and safe, thankyou all

dave_bass5 · 22-06-2007, 7:56 PM

This lens suffers a bit more from flare than some other lens's (like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8) so a hood is very useful.
I would still get a filter just to be safe in bad weather etc. My take on this is that while im sure i wont get the front element scratched i may damage it when im cleaning it. I feel nervous cleaning a front element but not cleaning a lens.

And so far ive not seen any IQ problems due to using a filter.