Type/brand of Lens UV filter?

[photobug]

With past SLRs I've always kept a UV filter on the lenses to
protect them. I have a Hoya UV filter on my Canon 28-135 IS
lens now ... however I've heard some swear that higher-quality
filters (e.g. B+W or Heliopan) make a difference in image quality.

Opinions? (or better yet, facts? :wink )

[cmr164]

With past SLRs I've always kept a UV filter on the lenses to
protect them. I have a Hoya UV filter on my Canon 28-135 IS
lens now ... however I've heard some swear that higher-quality
filters (e.g. B+W or Heliopan) make a difference in image quality.

Opinions? (or better yet, facts? :wink ) Fact: A filter provides a forward source of flare that is beyond the coverage of many lens hoods.

Fact: A filter adds two more surfaces to cause loss of contrast and one more optical element to cause distortion.

Fact: Lenses almost never make contact with the outside world if you use lens caps and lens hoods.

Fact: With digital cameras and WB adjustments, UV filtering is about as useful as a coalman on a maglev monorail.

Final fact: except for flare the above makes very little difference so if it makes your heart go pitter-patter to have your lens naked go ahead and put a filter on. Just remember sometimes it will make a difference and mostly the difference will not be beneficial. You will be better off with a coated expensive filter but not that much better off. Your best shot is no filter at all.

YMHO of course http://www.dgrin.com./images/smilies/icon10.gif

[pathfinder]

Fact: A filter provides a forward source of flare that is beyond the coverage of many lens hoods.

Fact: A filter adds two more surfaces to cause loss of contrast and one more optical element to cause distortion.

Fact: Lenses almost never make contact with the outside world if you use lens caps and lens hoods.

Fact: With digital cameras and WB adjustments, UV filtering is about as useful as a coalman on a maglev monorail.

Final fact: except for flare the above makes very little difference so if it makes your heart go pitter-patter to have your lens naked go ahead and put a filter on. Just remember sometimes it will make a difference and mostly the difference will not be beneficial. You will be better off with a coated expensive filter but not that much better off. Your best shot is no filter at all.

YMHO of course http://www.dgrin.com./images/smilies/icon10.gifI agree with cmr UNLESS you are on a sailing vessel on the salty ocean or at the beach, or in snow blizzard or a sand storm or at a grimy dusty work site or near a spray painting booth or near a air powered paint stripper, or a sneezing dog - or - OH well you get my drift I think. .......or my overspray....

For what it's worth - I don't use filters except polarizers very often - but I would use a 1A or a UV in any of the above mentioned situtations. I do have to clean salt spray off optics not infrequently - like today.

[cmr164]

I agree with cmr UNLESS you are on a sailing vessel on the salty ocean or at the beach, or in snow blizzard or a sand storm or at a grimy dusty work site or near a spray painting booth or near a air powered paint stripper, or a sneezing dog - or - OH well you get my drift I think. .......o rmy overspray....

For what it's worth - I don't use filters except polarizers very often - but I would use a 1A or a UV in any of the above mentioned situtations.
As do I.

[zero-zero]

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=2151&postcount=5

You're not going to see much difference between a good quality filter and the best one out there in this case. We have B+W, Nikon and Hoya UltraSlim in my studio, they are all good but expensive. Cokin= :puke1

The situation changes radically when one gets a polarizer, though, cheapos are crap and green as a pasture, the three above are completely neutral and optically correct.