Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
Your lens has 77mm filter size. That big filters may seem expensive (50-70 euros), but buying a new filter is always cheaper than buying a new lens (in case you hit the front part). I would also consider about getting a multi-coated filter (like Hoya HMC).
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
Both do relatively little to affect the image and I view either/both as more critical to the protection of the front element of the lens than to what they do for the resulting pictures. Whilst I am sure that there are indeed differences that the likes of Colin Work could explain, I'd not turn my nose up at either one if the other were not available.
MELflyer From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 9 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
I to use UV filters on my lenses. The protection offered while shooting through fences is invaluable, especially with all the knocks. Far cheaper to replace the filter than the lense, although i have noticed the prices of Hoya filters creeping up, so may have to be more careful.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3387 times:
I (and it seems from the photo sites) others have swung back and forth on the filter issue over the years. On the one hand, yes, they do offer some lens protection. On the other hand, its another piece of glass which may potentially reduce image quality - unless the filter is of the highest quality and multicoated it may result in slightly less contrast and increase the potential for flare.
My personal position at the moment is to go filter free (most of the time) - in all the years I have used filters I've not noticed any scratches or other damage which might have been inflicted on the lens. I do always use a lenshood though which I think provides more effective protection. Perhaps I have just been lucky, but having made a significant investment in high quality L glass, I am very reluctant to put anything else between the lens and the subject. One exception is that I try to remember to use one if shooting by the sea - I'm not keen on cleaning salt spray off the lens!
In terms of photographic benefit, technically the UV filter can help reduce
that bluish haze you see in distant landscapes, though the effect is subtle
and really only noticable under certain conditions (mid-day sun shots). Could help a bit with contrail shots.
The skylight adds a slight warming effect to your shots which partially counteracts the blue-ish shadows which occur in high sun situations.
This sort of very subtle filtration is important primarily for slide shooters. For print shooters, any effect will be negated by the processing lab (or more correctly, over-ridden by the machine exposure/colour compensation). For digital shooters, the effect of the filter is easily (and more precisely) replicated in Photoshop.