Lens Filter Kit

[jacsul]

Ok, searched our forum and did some research. I need 58mm filters.
Does anyone know if there is a package available with several of the most popular filters sold as a kit: uv, polarizing, warming, ect? From what i've read B+W & Hoya are considered better grade.
Thanks for the input.
Jack

[KentDub]

I think you're best buying them indivually. Prepackaged deals are usually very low quality. Pick the models you want, then search the net for deals, not the other way around

[Dave Humphries]

Ok, searched our forum and did some research. I need 58mm filters.
Does anyone know if there is a package available with several of the most popular filters sold as a kit: uv, polarizing, warming, ect? From what i've read B+W & Hoya are considered better grade.
Thanks for the input.
Jack

Hi Jack,

Firstly, I agree with Kent.

I was interested why you'd want a 'warming' filter though - when you can do it so easily in PP with digital, especially RAW (as I think you do now shoot). Maybe it was just an example of a filter name and I'm reading too much into the request for info.

UV and polarising I can understand, those and ND or graduated ND, although the latter are better as holder mounted versions so you can move the gradation up/down/left/right as well as rotate it.

I'd recommend Hoya Pro-1 Digital as a range - they are what I use
(UV and CPL)

Cheers,

[jacsul]

I was interested why you'd want a 'warming' filter though - when you can do it so easily in PP with digital, especially RAW (as I think you do now shoot). Maybe it was just an example of a filter name and I'm reading too much into the request for info.

Scratch the warming filter, your right, not needed I wasn't even thinking about post processing
RAW is awesome.

Thanks Dave.

I think you're best buying them indivually. Prepackaged deals are usually very low quality. Pick the models you want, then search the net for deals, not the other way around

Thanks Kentdub

[Amberglass]

There are many high quality filters name brands like B+W, Heliopan, Nikon, Lee, and Schneider Optics just to name a few. Make sure you get the multi-coat ones that will prevent glaring, ghosting, and soft images (makes images appear smudge, which is not the same as an actual "soft effects" filter). Hoya makes a higher end filter line as well. But Tiffen and Hoya are good starting points if you wish to use color or effects filters.

Warming filters comes from the days of film to help improve color renditions of certain lenses. Most often used in shady area or over cast days where the color balance tends to be more on the cool side.

[jacsul]

Hey all,
I picked this filter up as protection for my lens, 14-42mm Olympus (Hoya 58mm DMC PRO1 Digital Multi-Coated UV (Ultra Violet) Filter). My question; is this a decent filter or should I be looking for a better quality.
I also have a 40-150mm that needs a filter as well...
Thanks in advance for your help.

Jack

[Steve S]

Hey all,
I picked this filter up as protection for my lens, 14-42mm Olympus (Hoya 58mm DMC PRO1 Digital Multi-Coated UV (Ultra Violet) Filter). My question; is this a decent filter or should I be looking for a better quality.
I also have a 40-150mm that needs a filter as well...
Thanks in advance for your help.

Jack

This is something i never understood. Buy a good qual. lens and put a clear cover over it and take pictures????? You would think you would loose alot of picture quality by placing a cover over it. Its like shooting through a window all the time??????

Needless to say i never us a clear filter on my lens.

[Dave Humphries]

Hey all,
I picked this filter up as protection for my lens, 14-42mm Olympus (Hoya 58mm DMC PRO1 Digital Multi-Coated UV (Ultra Violet) Filter). My question; is this a decent filter or should I be looking for a better quality.
I also have a 40-150mm that needs a filter as well...
Thanks in advance for your help.

Jack

Hi Jack,

I would say that IS a decent filter.

Cheers,

[jacsul]

Thanks.

[Amberglass]

This is something i never understood. Buy a good qual. lens and put a clear cover over it and take pictures????? You would think you would loose alot of picture quality by placing a cover over it. Its like shooting through a window all the time??????

Needless to say i never us a clear filter on my lens.

Well Steve, if you take a close look at Canon's (200 mm f2L & up) and Nikon's high powered (same) primes and zooms; they already come with a high end protective (replaceable) cover filters.

The debate about to use clear protective filters, or not, have been an ongoing debate. I was not a fan of using a protective filter until the day I broke my first prime's frontal element. Yes, I had a hood on but it didn't matter, the hood broke too since it's made of plastic. A filter would've save it, and it's not big deal to replace a hood and filter than a while lens. Not everyone can afford to insure their gear.

It's not the fear of dropping your lens that you should be protecting your lenses. But what can get "on" your lenses' front elements. I've seen photographers who've come too close to shooting animals (petting zoos for example) that they actually "licked, scratched, or bite" their FE. Bird excrement is extremely corrosive to glass as well, and is not covered by your warranty. Seen this happen too while shooting at a wildlife sanctuary while I was panning after an owl with a 70-200 2.8 with teleconverter). Fortunately for me I was insured and the zoom was replaced.

Yes jascul, that's a better quality Hoya and is perfectly fine to use.

[rpcrowe]

Yes, a protective filter will degrade the image quality of a lens but, the question is, "Is the amount of protection offered by a filter worth the amount of quality lost?"

The answer is a definite MAYBE!

It would depend greatly on the venue and lighting in which you are shooting; the quality of filter used and the image quality which you will accept and whether you are using a correct lens hood.

I tend to take a mid-way stance and use a protective filter whenever I am in a venue that would be possibly harmful to my lens such as blowing dust and sand, precipitation or any other dangerous element. I always use a lens hood and when I do use a filter, it is always a top-line model such as B&W or the Hoya Multi-coated models.

BTW: I have never seen an objective measurement such as an MTF chart regarding the loss of image quality when using a protective filter. I would love to see some objective testing.

[Donald]

Jack

There have been a number of discussions about protective filters on this site (and others I'm sure).

I agree with the comment re staying away from kits (unless you're sure what's included).

As for the principle of protective filters in general, I'm firmly in the 'it's-a-no-brainer' camp. Whenever a lens is ordered a Hoya filter is ordered for the front. And when it arrives it goes on and it stays there. One filter per lens (others -GNDs, Polorizers, etc, - are interchangeable).

I've yet to see the evidence that supports the argument about a loss of quality.

[Colin Southern]

I hear the "filters degrade image quality" thing all the time. Yes - when shooting extreme contrast scenes a filter can promote flare and ghosting a little (in which case it's a no-brainer to just remove it on that occasion).

But mostly I find that the "degrades image quality" argument is based purely on good-sounding theory, but with zero evidence in a normal shooting shooting situation. Keep in mind that IN THEORY the oceans rise all over the world whenever I throw a pebble into one of them; the reality of course is something different.

One might also argue that because any change in image quality when using a high-quality filter is undetectable to the human eye, it's possible that technically using a filter might actually IMPROVE image quality (but we had no way of knowing) (perhaps by reducing a tiny amount of unsharpness in the blue channel for example).

So IN THEORY, who knows - all I can tell you is that IN PRACTICE (which is all that matters to me) the benefits of protection are very real, and there is ZERO downside.

In all honesty, I think that the basis for the argument is probably based more around excessive-compulsive-perfectionist tendencies of many photographers - and I don't mean that in a nasty or derogatory way as I consider myself to be clearly in that category as well. For me though - strive for perfection as I always do - I had to come to the realization that with photography, theory and practice don't always align; if you hold out for "true perfection" you never produce anything.