[ryanyboy]

Evening all,

Being clumsy I feel I ought to put a UV filter over my new Nikon 17-35mm lens. Being a wideangle lens though I've heard some folk say they wouldn't filter the lens due to possible distortion.

Just wondering would you put a UV filter over the lens and more importantly is there any major differences between these two:-

1) Hoya Pro1 Pro 1 Digital 77mm 77 mm DMC UV Filter UK on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 03-Feb-09 01:14:40 GMT)

or

2) Hoya SUPER HMC PRO1 UV filter 77mm 77 mm on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 28-Jan-09 12:43:26 GMT)

Thanks in advance

Ryan

[Some Bloke]

I recommend you fit one, a UV filter saved my 24-70 FX lens from being damaged.
I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference between the 2 filters.
One is probably just a newer version. They both do the same job.

[onefivenine]

The thing is, filters are so close to the lens that unless it's a certain critical shot you will not notice its presence 99% of the time. I also prefer to keep one on. I'd always recommend good quality filters too.

It will have some effect when shooting into the sun or point sources of light. I noticed a Pro1-d filter's slightly detrimental effect on the wide open bokeh shooting at f/1.4 with xmas tree lights in the background.

So there are times I would take a filter off. Shooting indoors with flash and other lighting for instance. But when shooting landscapes a huge filter holder is usually mounted anyway with all sorts hanging off it.


Edit: oh and there is nothing between those two filters - six of one.

[RobDickinson]

I dont. (usualy).

I look after my gear and dont want the associated downsides of having filters, especialy on wide angles.