UV lenses help (please...)

wba31

I'm rather new to the old photography game, managed to buy a Canon 10D second hand last year, has a basic zoom lens, and in December I bought a 50mm, 1.8f aperture lens.
In talking with people and reading stuff online, it has been suggested i invest in UV filters to go on my lenses to a) protect them and b) as it may improve some photos with regards to haziness from sunlight etc.
My problem comes from which to buy! i know i need a 52mm and a 58mm.

Jessops do these...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/9201/show.html

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/9202/show.html

but found these on Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-58mm-1X-UV-Filter/dp/B0000C4GEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300717907&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-52mm-Haze-Screw-Filter/dp/B00009R98A/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1300717907&sr=8-7

What do people recommend i get? or any better alternatives (that wont cost the earth)?

many thanks

Lirin

They're only UV filters. The cheapest will do, look for Hoya if you'd like good ones.

Dave_C_2

Just my 2d worth:

Filtering UV light
For older cameras, film was sensitive to UV light and so a good UV filter certainly helped. Digital cameras just don't need UV filters as the CCD is not sensitive at the UV end of the spectrum.
Haze and reflections
If you look at the front of your camera lens you will see anti-reflective/ anti scratch coatings. The lens designers spend a lot of time and effort getting the optical path just right to minimise reflections and haze. Now you want to stick a £10 Filter on the front of a £100 lens! and introduce more reflective surfaces
Protection
If it's bad enough to damage the filter then the lens is probably ****ed anyway, especially with modern image stabilizing lenses.
Also if the filter smashes then you have sharp bits of filter glass going straight into the front of the lens.
Best options
A lens cap when it's not in use and a lens hood to stop lens flare. The lens hood also provides some protection. Clean the dust off with a blower brush (not compressed air).
And also a polaroid filter, but that's another story.

Dave

Chimpofdoom

Bit of a debate on this topic.

My girlfriends brother in law (who's a wedding photographer) says he doesn't use lenses (unless he's wanting a certain effect) and advised me against it. His argument was, there's no point buying good lenses and putting inferior glass on top of it.

The argument for is.. they are cheap and protect the lens! Also certain lenses help with creating nice blue skys etc.

I've got a UV lens, but haven't put it on anything yet (only got the canon kit lens and the 50mm f1.8). I dont use the kit and if the 50mm dies.. i'll replace it..about to order a 15-85mm USM lens.. then I need to carefully thing about filters or not

Enterprise_1701C

I have a UV filter for my Nikon D40, only use the lenses that came with it though. I use it when we are on holiday in sunny climes and find that the pictures come out better with it, and I believe it protects the various sensors within the camera too. I also use a lens sunshade to stop all the relections you can get.

diable

Chimpofdoom wrote: »

Bit of a debate on this topic.

My girlfriends brother in law (who's a wedding photographer) says he doesn't use lenses

Etch a Sketch?

Chimpofdoom

diable wrote: »

Etch a Sketch?

D'oh.. filters

Lirin

I have filters for all my lenses- I'd prefer to protect them. After all, I can always take them off, but as someone else said, UV filters are largely redundant now.
The idea is not to protect from dropping etc, causing significant damage, but to protect from scratching. It happens easily, I've had other photographers using my camera before wiping the lens with an ordinary tissue- that can leave small swirl scratches. There's a myraid of other things, lenses are easily damaged. Anti-reflective coatings can in some lenses make the surface slightly softer. Most lenses already have 6-8 elements in it now- a filter isn't introducing anything more.
I have tried using a lens before that had a bad scratch on it- and it's a complete pain. I'd rather scratch a £10-£20 filter than a £800 lens.

wba31

Thanks for everyones responses, as I said I only bought my 10D in August last year so I am very new to all of this. I have ordered the 2 off Amazon, think it may be £30 for piece of mind from scratches as people said.

My intention is to one day upgrade to a 60D, but getting married in just over 3 weeks so that idea is on the back burner for now...

moonrakerz

The subject of UV filters as "protection" causes a lot of "earnest" conversations !

1. On a digital camera you don't need them to remove UV, this can be done in the processing.
2. Cheap UV filters often don't remove the UV anyway.
3. Fungal growth in lenses is becoming more of a problem nowadays. UV kills fungus, put a UV filter on and you make a perfect little greenhouse for the fungus to grow in !
4. The usual quoted reason for fitting them is to "protect" the camera lens. You read the same old story. " I dropped my camera, the filter broke, but the lens was OK - so the filter saved the lens"
Filters are made of thin glass, lenses are made of bits of chunky glass - the filter will break first. Proves nothing at all - like saying that when you dropped your shopping, the fact that the eggs broke, "saved" the jar of pickled onions !
5. If you get, say, Ice Cream on the filter and again say the filter "saved" then lens - what do you do then ? you just wipe the ice cream off and carry on. If the lens was going to be damaged, then the filter now is - yet you carry on using it in front of your lens. How many people buy a new filter when this sort of thing happens - ZERO !

Google it and see the comments on this......................