Filter recommendations please

[megan.c.lynch]

Hi everyone! I just received a new lens for my Rebel XT (55-200mm f/4.5-5.6) and I need to buy at least a UV filter for it (52mm). Any recommendations? I don't want to spend an arm and a leg, maybe up to $30 or so. Still paying back my student loans...

I found a couple on eBay, including a Canon brand for only $15. Read a couple of reviews and for the intermediate price, Hoya gets good marks (except for their 'green label' products), but I'd like some opinions from people I know are 'real' photographers :p

I'm also interested in a circular polarizer, and found a Hoya Moose one for about $25. Any words about that line? I do a lot of outdoor shots and it would be nice to have something that made the sky bluer, I think.

Any help would be appreciated!

[MatsP]

All of my filters come from two companies: Hoya and B+W. Both make good products. That's not necessarily because I've tried all others and found these good, but rather that those were the ones available when I needed them.

Since the main purpose of the UV filter is to "prevent stuff from getting to the front lens element", it's not particularly important how good it is as a UV filter, but it's obviously of some importance that it's not distorting the image in any way. Anything but the "noname extra cheap" would be fine here.

Pol-filters are nice, I've got a few for different size lenses - I think all are from Hoya, for the reason stated above.

--
Mats

[rbritt1268]

Although some may not agree with me Megan, I've used a Cokin filter box for years with acceptable results. I like the filter box because you can use several filters simultanously and Cokin is readily available and fairly priced. I'm certain there are better quality filters but these have always served me well...

[jliechty]

The Cokin system was great back in the days of film. I never owned one personally, but enjoyed using someone else's for an afternoon once. They were so good from my point of view because of the flexibility allowed with graduated neutral density filters. However, with digital systems today, the multiple-shot blended exposure has mostly taken over where graduated ND filters were used. If you'd still prefer to use a graduated ND filter for dynamic range compression instead of digital blending, then the Cokin system is your best choice (versus a graduated ND filter that screws on, which is not as flexible).

On the other hand, it is very easy to duplicate with Photoshop the effects of almost all filters except that of the polarizer. If you will only have a UV filter and a polarizer, you'll never need to use them simultaneously. This makes a large filter system much less appealing in my opinion, though only you can decide if such a system would be useful based on your future plans.

One comment about "Moose" polarizers: they include extra filtration to "warm up" your photos. Know that the extra filtration eats up more light than a normal polarizer (which already cuts between one and two stops of light by itself). Since adjusting the color temperature ("warming" or "cooling") of digital camera RAW files is very easy (and only a bit harder with JPEGs), I'd choose a normal polarizer and do my color balancing on the computer.

[Transcend]

I pesonaly dont use a UV filter but I have several others. Canon filters are very nice but on the price side. I paid 100.00 for my 77mm Canon polarizer when Hoya makes it much cheaper. I have several Hoya filters also. I dont think you can go wrong with either but if you wanna save some dough go with the Hoya filters.

[megan.c.lynch]

Thanks for the recommendations! I will definitely be going with the standard UV, if for nothing else, to keep my lens safe.

Also, jliechty, thanks for the info about the Moose polarizers. I hadn't even thought about that- and it's important because I'm sort of restricted on the aperture with the new lens. I might be better off buying one for my kit lens instead.

[agesilaus]

A couple of comments. I use the Cokin system too and while it is possible to duplicate the effects of a gradient neutral density in PS, it takes a lot of fiddling around and doesn't seem to be a effective to me. I had a shot done without filters and worked on it in PS for over an hour, and I know how to do digital blends. But I was never happy with the results. I went back and reshot it with a gradient filter and was very surprised at the difference. Bright colors and very much improved overall. It was much more natural in appearance.

So my feeling is that you still need CPL, neutral density for slow shutter speed, gradients and maybe a few special filters like star filters. Some effects can be done in PS but it can be a lot easier to take 15 seconds to put the filter on and save yourself an hour of PS work.

I also use a UV on all lenses just to keep dust and spray off the front element. You have to be wary of night shots with a UV on the lens tho. I do a lot of outside shooting tho. If you mainly work indoors then maybe you don't need a UV.

And lastly I find 2filters.com to have pretty good prices and very good service. They carry all the major brands.

[hnordberg]

The important thing is to get a coated filter. Filters that are coated will reduce internal reflections and that leads to more contrast in your photos. A lens hood will also increase contrast, so that may be something else to look into getting. I always use both a UV (I have Heliopan, B+W and Hoya and they are all good (and coated)) and a lens hood. A hood will also protect front of the lens from damage if you bump it into something.

Cheers
- Henrik

[swartzphotography]

i am going to throw in a couple words of advise here myself. stay clear of the tiffen brand uv filter. and as mats said stay clear of the cheap glass no name brands. i can say the tiffen uv give unacceptable focus problems. i purchased a 65 mm uv filter from tiffen for my 300 mm tamron lens i went on a day at the state fair and got to take pics of authentic indian dancers. after i got to looking at the pics they were trash. way out of focus. i discovered the filter was the cause of this. so now i have these great pics that are still rather dissapointing to me cuz i know the filter sucked.

[rbritt1268]

i am going to throw in a couple words of advise here myself. stay clear of the tiffen brand uv filter. and as mats said stay clear of the cheap glass no name brands. i can say the tiffen uv give unacceptable focus problems. i purchased a 65 mm uv filter from tiffen for my 300 mm tamron lens i went on a day at the state fair and got to take pics of authentic indian dancers. after i got to looking at the pics they were trash. way out of focus. i discovered the filter was the cause of this. so now i have these great pics that are still rather dissapointing to me cuz i know the filter sucked.
Wow, what a shame Mark. Looks like these would have been spectacular! I hope you use that filter for nothing more than a coaster now!;)

[agesilaus]

I agree don't buy the cheapest. I usually look for midpriced multicoat and thin filters. The one I got for my Canon 70-200mm was a Sunpak. But I don't buy the really expensive ones either.

[swartzphotography]

well actually i leave it on the lens when im not using it and i take it off when im shooting. at least until i decide to get a new filter for the lens. i really dont shoot to much with that lens as most of my pics are portraits.

[megan.c.lynch]

Thanks for the help everybody!