Is purchasing a UV filter a good idea?

[contributor_M]

I just received my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens and I'm wondering if I should just buy a UV filter with it, or just go without one.

Are they worth the buy? Any suggestions on good UV filter brands if they are?

Now that I think about it, I may need to get a lens hood as well.

[boxofrocks]

Most folks get one for every lens they have under the idea that a scratched filter is cheaper to replace than a front lens element. Hoya and BW are good, but there are a lot out there. There are some "counterfeit" ones on eBay, so if you get one there, be sure to buy from someone reputable. You probably won't see a noticeable difference in your photos (for the most part), but it offers good piece of mind.

I don't mind cleaning the front of my filter with the (relatively) clean t-shirt I'm wearing, but when I clean my actual lens element, I'm a lot more careful, and use a blower first. I usually only have to clean front elements annually when I have a filter attached.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

Most folks get one for every lens they have under the idea that a scratched filter is cheaper to replace than a front lens element. Hoya and BW are good, but there are a lot out there. There are some "counterfeit" ones on eBay, so if you get one there, be sure to buy from someone reputable. You probably won't see a noticeable difference in your photos (for the most part), but it offers good piece of mind.

I don't mind cleaning the front of my filter with the (relatively) clean t-shirt I'm wearing, but when I clean my actual lens element, I'm a lot more careful, and use a blower first. I usually only have to clean front elements annually when I have a filter attached.

Ask 100 folks and you'll get 200 answers. Tom's answer matches my practice since defore we got electricity. Don't skimp on filters. On the other hand, don't be afraid of buying high quality filters in pristine condition used.
Buy a circular polarizer. It WILL improve your photos. When used correctly and in the right conditions. Yes, they are expensive. No, you can't do what a polarizer does in Photoshop.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by venchka

Buy a circular polarizer. It WILL improve your photos. When used correctly and in the right conditions. Yes, they are expensive. No, you can't do what a polarizer does in Photoshop.

Absolutely correct.

And make sure it's a CIRCULAR polarizer. The older linear ones work fine for film, but not digital. If you can still find a linear one, that is. I pulled one from yesteryear out of my bag and used it several years ago and it took me a google search to figure out WTF was going on with my camera.

[S-Man]

Meh, I don't use filters generally. I have an expensive high-quality CPL filter that I use occasionally, but as for UV filters, I don't put them on most lenses.
Especially for the 50 1.8. The element is so far deep in the lens housing, I don't even know why they made a hood for this lens. You'd have to drop it on a nail pointing up or some other type of cone to have something reach that element on the 50 1.8.

[Abel]

im one that doesnt use UV filters... i own one filter and its a Circular Polarizer...

if you do decide to get a UV filter my advice would be to not settle for a cheap $15 inexpensive one.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Meh, I don't use filters generally. I have an expensive high-quality CPL filter that I use occasionally, but as for UV filters, I don't put them on most lenses.
Especially for the 50 1.8. The element is so far deep in the lens housing, I don't even know why they made a hood for this lens. You'd have to drop it on a nail pointing up or some other type of cone to have something reach that element on the 50 1.8.

That's true.

It's also true that the front element on a 400mm 2.8 zoom is about 8 inches deep from the end of the hood, but I managed to scratch one once all the same. Now you can't get a filter big enough to fit that (not even threaded I don't think), so it's a moot point in this case, but you get the idea.

Not preaching, just educating.

[ualymerej]

to expand on this, what would be a good circular polarizer to go with? Each company has so many options including the ones that they say are designed for digital, multi-coated, etc. etc... I'm looking for a 77mm size.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by ualymerej

to expand on this, what would be a good circular polarizer to go with? Each company has so many options including the ones that they say are designed for digital, multi-coated, etc. etc... I'm looking for a 77mm size.

I like Hoya or BW. Better be ready to get out your wallet for that 77. That's what I have, too.

[venchka]

I own one 77mm B+W circular polarizer that does double duty on my 17-35 & 70-200 lenses. It gets the job done. In fact, all of my polarizers are B+W. One bought new (77mm) and two used (67mm & 82mm). The two used polarizers were cheaper in total than the one bought new.

[ualymerej]

but each of those companies has 4 or 5 offerings and they all have varying prices. I'm pretty sure I don't need the slim ones (if it's more expensive) since the widest I would use it is 24mm, but then they have various coatings and sealing (which I guess I don't need either since I rarely shoot in harsh conditions).

Polarizing

the nikon branded one has the most reviews...

[brewercm]

For me it depends on the lens and the $$ I spent on it. I can't see spending $150 on a filter to put in front of a $120 lens. Even the best filter will have some (minimal maybe) effect on the end product.

Now on my more expensive lenses it makes sense.

[Some Idiot]

I'm another who doesn't use filters, I use the hood for added protection....

I think it was an old captain that once said "If Canon wanted a UV filter on the lens they would have made it that way"

I do own a few ND filters and a Circular Polarizer for use as needed

I also agree with others, if you are going to use one on your lenses, DO NOT go cheap......

[brad]

Originally Posted by Abel

if you do decide to get a UV filter my advice would be to not settle for a cheap $15 inexpensive one.

Exactly.. it makes no sense to spend a lot of money on optics just to put a cheap piece of glass in front of them. A UV filter only has one real purpose IMHO - and that is to protect the lens... but if it degrades the quality of your photos, why bother? If you're anal about lens caps (like I am), you don't need it.

Originally Posted by brewercm

For me it depends on the lens and the $$ I spent on it. I can't see spending $150 on a filter to put in front of a $120 lens. Even the best filter will have some (minimal maybe) effect on the end product.

And that's the rub here... a *good* UV filter will cost you $60-100 ... and you can find a Canon 50mm 1.8 for under $100 ... you just doubled the cost of your lens and the only result will be potentially fuzzier pictures..

[venchka]

As Tom pointed out...
A UV or Skylight filter on a lens keeps the lens clean. I clean the front surface of the filter as needed. I clean the front element of the lens as need. Like almost never. Think about it.
I shop the used lens market. I often run across lenses with "cleaning marks on the front element." These bring considerably less money than lenses without cleaning marks. Filters are cheap insurance.
B+W's Multi Resistant Coating (MRC) filters are expensive. The MRC is like teflon on the glass. Crud can't hang on like other filters. Check KEH for good used filters.