Protection for Lens/DSLR
- Thread starter Blue125
- Start date
Blue125 said:
For such a cheap lens I won't bother getting a filter, just becareful with you lens or use a lens hood as mentioned before
You don't need any filter to protect this lens, it's recessed into barrel by more than 0.5". The front element is also relatively small.
hmm.... I don't really understand what you mean. Can you make it simple? >.<
Dust on front element will become visible when it starts forming colonies. A blower would help much earlier. But as mentioned already by others: there is simply no point getting any filter because of the construction of the lens. The big distance between front element and filter will support impressive flares, though. If that's required or intended ..
Last edited:
An affordable UV filter usually means crap glass or plastic used, which means degrading image quality of your lens. If you put a crap $20 filter on your 70-200 lens, it might produce even crappier photos than my 18-55 kit lens. Cheap filters give rise to a whole range of issues, like
-lower light transmission rate
-flares
-ghosting issues
-softness in images
-distortions
-CAs
My advice is if you want to buy a filter, get a good one. Otherwise don't get one. If you are not prepared to spend $100 on your thousand dollars plus lens, something is wrong with you. If you want a UV filter, get a Hoya HD or B+W filter. Not some Vitacon or Steinzeisser piece of crap. For cheap lenses, a lens hood will suffice for protection. I don't even bother putting filters on a 18-55 or a 50/1.8
Last edited:
just get a normal Hoya or Kenko UV filter to protect your lens would do. Remember to get from Reputable Shop like T K Photo so that you don't get chop carrot. Seriously i don't find it a point to get those expensive filter.
Hoya HMC 49mm i tink is S$20+ hehehe.. but his lens 50/1.8.. dont really have to get those up-up filters that cost more than the lens..
One should understand the purpose of a UV filter before buying them, instead of just blindly purchasing them without knowing what they do. It is supposed to be a sacrificial protection for the lens - if the lens drops or bumps into something, the UV filter breaks, instead of the front element breaking. Protecting the lens from dust is not a main purpose of a UV filter, as you still have to blow the dust off it, and you can do that as easily with the front element of the lens. Lenses with very recessed front elements, like the 50mm f1.8 lens, do not require UV filters, as it is unlikely for the front element to be damaged. Putting a UV filter, especially one of inferior quality, will degrade the image quality of the lens. What is the point of getting a good lens and putting crap in front of it so it gives crap images?
My opinions is that just forget about buying the cheap UV filters, they are just a waste of money. For cheap lenses, don't put a UV filter on. For expensive lenses, put a high grade UV filter on. You're much better saving that $20+ for flash gels or umbrellas or something like that, they improve your images, instead of making your lens lousier than it should be.
My opinions is that just forget about buying the cheap UV filters, they are just a waste of money. For cheap lenses, don't put a UV filter on. For expensive lenses, put a high grade UV filter on. You're much better saving that $20+ for flash gels or umbrellas or something like that, they improve your images, instead of making your lens lousier than it should be.
Last edited:
Similar threads
