Filter for Canon Rebel lens
August 21, 2013 5:04 PM Subscribe
I just got a Canon EOS Rebel Tsi camera and I would like get a filter for the lens as protection. Back in the olden days with a film camera I had a UV filter. Is that still the way to go? Also, any recommendations? They start at $3 on Amazon and go up to $30, quite a spread. Thanks.
Yes. For protection-only on a digital camera UV is the way to go. I would spend an amount of money you feel comfortable with, relative to the equipment you're protecting.
Tiffen makes good, cheap filters. B+W is my favorite more expensive option; high quality glass with multi-resistant coating, which helps reduce flare, and a brass ring that just oozes confidence.
Watch out for "thin" versions of filters, they sound cool (and sometimes can be more useful) but often the original lens cap won't fit on a thin mount.
posted by phaedon at 5:22 PM on August 21, 2013
Tiffen makes good, cheap filters. B+W is my favorite more expensive option; high quality glass with multi-resistant coating, which helps reduce flare, and a brass ring that just oozes confidence.
Watch out for "thin" versions of filters, they sound cool (and sometimes can be more useful) but often the original lens cap won't fit on a thin mount.
posted by phaedon at 5:22 PM on August 21, 2013
Hoya or B+W are the brands I would go for. You don't want a cheap filter.
posted by inertia at 5:31 PM on August 21, 2013
posted by inertia at 5:31 PM on August 21, 2013
There is indeed quite a spread, and there's real difference between the bottom of that ladder and the top. Lens filters are like lenses: you get what you pay for. However, one difference is that a millimeter's a millimeter. Many pros use Nikon filters on Canon lenses.
posted by cribcage at 5:31 PM on August 21, 2013
posted by cribcage at 5:31 PM on August 21, 2013
Hit post too soon: another comparison of quality vs. cheap filters.
posted by inertia at 5:35 PM on August 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by inertia at 5:35 PM on August 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't use filters, I just put a lens hood on, which keeps stuff from getting near the glass.
Because it breaks down this way:
Cheap lens: Why buy a filter that is worth almost the same as the lens? You could just buy another lens if something really goes wrong.
Expensive lens: Why would you put a cheap piece of filter glass in front of an exquisitely tuned optical system?
posted by Mercaptan at 6:13 PM on August 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Because it breaks down this way:
Cheap lens: Why buy a filter that is worth almost the same as the lens? You could just buy another lens if something really goes wrong.
Expensive lens: Why would you put a cheap piece of filter glass in front of an exquisitely tuned optical system?
posted by Mercaptan at 6:13 PM on August 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'll throw in a token "no filter" vote.
I've used SLRs, (first film, now digital) for 35 years, and never used a filter for protection. My thought is that if I'm reasonably careful, I'm not going to damage the lens; lenses do withstand quite a bit of abuse anyway. And if I do smack my lens hard enough to crack or gouge it, then the likelihood is that amount of impact would break the filter anyway, sending sharp filter glass into the lens. I have ZERO scientific backing for my theory, but I can tell you that in my 35 years I have never damaged a lens. In fact, when I have my camera strapped to me for shooting, I don't even keep the lens cap on it. The cap goes on when I put it away.
That said, I don't think a decent quality filter will affect image quality in any meaningful way for normal photography.
posted by The Deej at 7:01 PM on August 21, 2013
I've used SLRs, (first film, now digital) for 35 years, and never used a filter for protection. My thought is that if I'm reasonably careful, I'm not going to damage the lens; lenses do withstand quite a bit of abuse anyway. And if I do smack my lens hard enough to crack or gouge it, then the likelihood is that amount of impact would break the filter anyway, sending sharp filter glass into the lens. I have ZERO scientific backing for my theory, but I can tell you that in my 35 years I have never damaged a lens. In fact, when I have my camera strapped to me for shooting, I don't even keep the lens cap on it. The cap goes on when I put it away.
That said, I don't think a decent quality filter will affect image quality in any meaningful way for normal photography.
posted by The Deej at 7:01 PM on August 21, 2013
Any filter is going to degrade the image quality, better (... more expensive) filters will degrade it less. If you have the regular kit lens on a T1i, an appropriate filter costs more than replacing the lens. Another no filter vote.
posted by TheAdamist at 8:21 PM on August 21, 2013
posted by TheAdamist at 8:21 PM on August 21, 2013
There is a still a belief in the photog community that these filters affect image quality.
I wouldn't say they affect image quality in any substantial way but they can produce ghosting of light sources in night photography. Here's the best example I can find in a short review of my photostream. If you look at the front tire of the moped you'll see a blur that is the shape and size of the streetlight above - flipped both horizontal and vertical. That kind of lens interior light bouncing ghosting doesn't happen if there's no cheap filter on the front.
I guess it goes without saying that I now shoot without any sort of 'protective' filters.
posted by komara at 10:28 PM on August 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't say they affect image quality in any substantial way but they can produce ghosting of light sources in night photography. Here's the best example I can find in a short review of my photostream. If you look at the front tire of the moped you'll see a blur that is the shape and size of the streetlight above - flipped both horizontal and vertical. That kind of lens interior light bouncing ghosting doesn't happen if there's no cheap filter on the front.
I guess it goes without saying that I now shoot without any sort of 'protective' filters.
posted by komara at 10:28 PM on August 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have had a UV filter save my lens when I fell over on granite while hiking and photographing. The filter was bent on the edge and had the glass smashed, the lens and camera had a couple of small scratches on the body but were absolutely fine. I got a replacement filter very quickly. Even with buying Hoya it was a very worthwhile investment.
posted by deadwax at 3:44 AM on August 22, 2013
posted by deadwax at 3:44 AM on August 22, 2013
Since digital cameras have UV filters over their sensors, and the glass in the lenses is coated to reflect out UV, I doubt a UV filter does anything but cause trouble.
If you need something protective, I would get a "filter" made of plain glass. Like a ND filter with 0 stops.
The only time I'd use something like that is if I were in an environment where the dirt and dust would naturally cause worse image defects than the filter. But for just wandering around, use the lens cap and a hood.
posted by gjc at 9:41 AM on August 22, 2013
If you need something protective, I would get a "filter" made of plain glass. Like a ND filter with 0 stops.
The only time I'd use something like that is if I were in an environment where the dirt and dust would naturally cause worse image defects than the filter. But for just wandering around, use the lens cap and a hood.
posted by gjc at 9:41 AM on August 22, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
There is a still a belief in the photog community that these filters affect image quality. That may well by possible, but to my untrained eye I can't tell the difference. The peace of mind is worth it.
Some also say lens hoods are a good way to go. I use both.
posted by Sonic_Molson at 5:22 PM on August 21, 2013