# Tiffen UV filters



## kkamin (Aug 25, 2009)

I just bought some Tiffen UV filters for my Canon lenses.  The are not multi-coated like the more expensive ones, so what kinds of things should I look out for?  I bought it primarily to protect the lens, but I was reading some consumer reviews that you might get some unwanted reflections in situations.  

Anyone deal with this or any other issues?  If so, what are the situations where this arises?--I'll just pull off the filters at those times.

They are pretty cheap at Amazon btw, I was just at my local camera store and they were selling for $20.

Thanks for reading!


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 25, 2009)

I'd never buy another Tiffen UV filter again.  I thought my 24-70 was soft and not able to get a good picture, until I took it off.  That freaking filter made my 24-70 worse than a kit lens!

I now use only Hoya pro filters... massive... and I mean MASSIVE improvement.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 26, 2009)

Cheap? It's $6.68. 

It's not a matter of "These are not multi-coated like the more expensive ones"
It's more like "These give horrible picture quality unlike the multi-coated and not very more expensive ones."

If you can't find a multicoated filter for $20 you're not looking in the right place. Try ebay. Look for Hoya or Kenko HMC SHMC KMC or Pro series. 

Trust us you don't want this on your lens.
Or don't trust us and just check the results yourself: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...100830-more-hoya-filter-comparison-tests.html


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 26, 2009)

I've just looked on amazon and you can get a Hoya SHMC in 77mm sizes for $38 bucks US plus shipping.  Now that is what I would call a darn good deal for a good filter.

Amazon.com: Used and New: Hoya SUPER HMC Haze UV(0) - Filter - UV - 77 mm

Smaller filters would likely be around the same price or less.  At these prices, there is no reason to even look at a Tiffen filter!


----------



## KmH (Aug 26, 2009)

What are you wanting to 'protect' your lens from?

Putting on a UV filter (or any other filter for that matter) adds an air gap and increases the chance of lens flare. There will be some degree of overall image quality degradation. With really good filters the degradation is not visible to the human eye.

A lens hood offers better general 'protection' than a filter does. Plus, a lens hood improves, rather than degrades, image quality by adding a measure of contrast. A lens hood is also the first defense against lens flare.

The truth of the matter is that UV filters had application on film cameras, but don't have those same applications to digital cameras. Filter makers needed a digital market for their UV filter lines and began promoting their use as lens 'protection'. 

I'd have to say you wasted your money, and will waste more money if you buy more expensive UV filters.

There are other photographers that swear a UV filter is the best solution for lens 'protection'.

You'll decide for yourself which path to choose.


----------



## JerryPH (Aug 26, 2009)

I choose both.  

It is no great effort to leave the lens hood on, and a good filter is not going to affect your pictures, even at 300% pixel peeping levels.

Someone recently said it was almost the same price to change a front element as to buy a good filter.  My call to Nikon Canada discovered that the price of a GOOD filter is about 1/4 the cost of replacing the front element on either a Nikkor 24-70 or 70-200 lens, not including shipping and larger funds for more taxes and not including the fact that you have to send your lens away for a week or three... whereas to replace a filter takes like 30 seconds of your time.

If you have thousands of dollars invested in a lens, it is foolish to not protect it with a quality filter.  However, it is kinda silly to spend $150 for a filter to put it on a $80 lens.

A little common sense never hurts.


----------



## kkamin (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm the OP, look what I started!  

I think this is true:

the more you clean your front lens element, the more you wear down the coating on it.  Filters can be worn down too, but can be replaced easily.

if something breaks the UV filter and the UV filter's glass scratches the lens, AND that is your argument for not wanting a UV filter, I think that is a very illogical train of thought.  A large percent of the time, whatever damaged the UV filter would do enough harm to the lens instead, to make you cry.

I understand people not wanting to use the filters since its another piece of glass for the image to pass through and for the times where it creates reflections.  

I guess there are pros and cons to both.  I think a lens hood is a good idea all the time.  If you just shoot in a studio you can probably do without a UV filter.  But if you are a field photographer, it probably is a good idea since you're in constantly changing, uncontrollable conditions. 

?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2009)

It's foolish to buy a $1,899 lens and put a $38 piece of cheap glass in front of it. ALL filters will degrade optical performance to *some* degree. The two,perfectly flat air-to-glass surfaces positioned in front of a top-quality lens can sometimes cause unwanted reflections, or flares, especially when shooting toward bright light sources, and most-especially when shooting toward bright or point light sources (candles, marquee lights, the sun, other cameras and their flashes going off simultaneously, TV camera crew lights,etc).

A curved front lens element resists flares and ghosting quite well; a flat filter tends to exacerbate flare problems. A good lens hood improves contrast by shading the lens' front element from stray light rays coming in at glancing angles, which is *exactly* the situation where a UV filter,and especially a cheap,single coated $6.88 filter will tend to cause problems under tough conditions.

I used Nikon L37c protective filters for many years before deciding to ditch them under *almost* all conditions. I no longer use filters on lenses that cost anywhere from $40 to $5,000. I payed for the best lenses, so I am not going to introduce additional "protection" that is of dubious practical value unless trees are putting off airborne sap for three weeks during the springtime.

Have you ever considered protective goggles to prevent yourself from accidentally poking yourself in the eye with a fork at mealtimes?


----------



## Garbz (Aug 27, 2009)

kkamin said:


> ?



No "?" You're right on the money as far as I'm concerned. 

Unfortunately this is a religious debate as you can see. There's no point in arguging with people who feel strongly about it, but non the less time to reply to Derrel.



Derrel said:


> It's foolish to buy a $1,899 lens and put a $38 piece of cheap glass in front of it. ALL filters will degrade optical performance to *some* degree. The two,perfectly flat air-to-glass surfaces positioned in front of a top-quality lens can sometimes cause unwanted reflections, or flares, especially when shooting toward bright light sources, and most-especially when shooting toward bright or point light sources (candles, marquee lights, the sun, other cameras and their flashes going off simultaneously, TV camera crew lights,etc).



So I'll post http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...100830-more-hoya-filter-comparison-tests.html to show how very irrelevant your image loss is along with this point: It screws on. If it flares take it off. You can't put it on AFTER something scratches your lens.



Derrel said:


> Have you ever considered protective goggles to prevent yourself from accidentally poking yourself in the eye with a fork at mealtimes?



No but then I am in control of my fork. 

I always wear some form of eye protection when I'm out cycling and could get stray bugs in my eye, or drilling where bits could fly somewhere, or when playing squash when the ball could come off at a funny angle and take my eye out.

Compare that to photography:

You don't need a filter late at night by yourself. Or when doing still life, Or when doing careful studio work.

You do if a horse can kick mud on your sensor (has happened, scratched). Or at a wedding when some kid decides to play with the end of your spare camera (has happened didn't scratch, cleaned with my shirt), or when you're off rock climbing while taking photos and you slip (has happened, hood broke, filter broke lens intact).

I say bring on the "crap" image quality, I don't have a spare $2000 laying around!


----------



## Dao (Aug 27, 2009)

One point I would like to point out for a beginner in case some are reading this thread. My friend was new to photography, do not know anything about photography nor camera gears.  He bought a Canon XS with the 2 kit lens and then later on a 50mm prime.

He learn from a forum that he need to protect his lenses with filters.  Then he told me he would like to buy some filters to protect his lens and asked me what he need to buy.  I told him he do not need any because low grade filters are worthless, and good filters may cost as much as his lenses, so why bother.

In other words, for those who use a $100 to 200 lens, I do not see to point to buy a $100 filter nor buy a $7 filter for protection.


----------

