Protection for Lens/DSLR


Blue125

New Member
Mar 15, 2011
36
0
0
East
#1
Hi Guys,

I'm a beginner photographer, I just bought a Sony 290 kit with a free SAL50F18 lens. Here goes my 1st question, should I buy the filter and lens hood for both of my lens?

Regrads,
Blue125.
 

wilb87

New Member
Dec 19, 2010
257
0
0
30
#2
If you have to buy a filter, get a good filter. If not, theres no point in getting cheap filter, because they degrades your image quality badly.
I think lens hood is sufficient to protect your camera lens
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#3
Blue125 said:
Hi Guys,

I'm a beginner photographer, I just bought a Sony 290 kit with a free SAL50F18 lens. Here goes my 1st question, should I buy the filter and lens hood for both of my lens?

Regrads,
Blue125.
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
 

Diavonex

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2008
3,641
0
0
Admiralty
#4
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.

 

Blue125

New Member
Mar 15, 2011
36
0
0
East
#5
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? >.<
 

cks2k2

New Member
Feb 12, 2009
939
2
0
#6
Meaning the "front glass" is deep inside the barrel. Very unlikely to get scratched.
 

Nubzz

New Member
Dec 31, 2010
192
0
0
32
Singapore
#8
If u want protection from dust, u can always get a uv filter. 49mm uv filters are generally not that exp.. Just get a normal and affordable 1 (not those B+Ws)
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,517
30
48
Pasir Ris
#9
If u want protection from dust, u can always get a uv filter. 49mm uv filters are generally not that exp.. Just get a normal and affordable 1 (not those B+Ws)
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:

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#10
If u want protection from dust, u can always get a uv filter. 49mm uv filters are generally not that exp.. Just get a normal and affordable 1 (not those B+Ws)
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:

Reno

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2005
2,324
1
38
Land of the Teddy Bear
#11
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.
 

Nubzz

New Member
Dec 31, 2010
192
0
0
32
Singapore
#12
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
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..
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#13
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..
There is no need for a filter for that lens
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#15
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.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom