49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n

Started Feb 11, 2013 | Discussions
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,407Gear list
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to sonyman12, Feb 13, 2013

If you want to use one, get a good multi coated filter. These cost a lot, so decide if it is worth a $30-$50 US protection filter for a lens that can be replaced used for maybe $150.

A good filter will lessen image quality minimally, a bad filter can have a very noticeable impact on image quality (especially in terms of flare and ghosting shooting in contra light, bright back lights).

This is something you have to decide.

Eric

PS edit, the front element of the lens is usually very durable and coated with special protection coatings.  What will get them is rubbing sand or something on them.  You want to blow them off or lightly brush them clean before wiping them with a clean microfiber or equivalent (like a lens pen).

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rickj23
Regular MemberPosts: 456
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to sonyman12, Feb 14, 2013

I trust that you know that UV or Skylight filters are completely useless with digital sensors ... they were only needed for film because of the colour shift the UV light caused. As a matter of fact using the UV filter in daylight photography will introduce the haze to all your pictures, the colours will look washed out. At night time, the UV filter will add in extra reflections, it will disperse the sharp outlines of neon lights etc.

If you are thinking of lens protection from dust and impact ... that have the lens cap on when not shooting [hang it on string attached to lens so you don't lose it ... and keep the lens hood on. The lens hood is usually fixed to outside of the lens [bayonet fit] hence, it will protect the lens better then filter fitted into the lens thread. In case of frontal impact, the filter is likely to disintegrate and scratch your lens, apart of ruining the lens thread.

The Filter quality?  The entire photographic section of Hoya, including the Pentax cameras, lenses and "Hoya filters" manufacturing was sold to the Chinese outfit with HQ in Taiwan [they as well own the Ricoh brand]. Hoya in Japan has only retained Pentax medical optical instrumentation manufacturing.

So buying Hoya filters, you are buying Chinese filters [or at best the filters made in Philippines]. Don't get swayed by the filter having Hoya Japan description on the barrel.  The "Hoya Japan" is the trademark and it doesn't equate to "Made in Japan".  So don't pay premium for Hoya filters. If you are thinking of buying a few filters ... one of nice to have is the circular [not linear] polariser and other,  perhaps the Infra Red filter. If you get 52 mm or 62 mm size, you can get step down adaptor rings to fit NEX kit lens e.g. step down to 49 mm. Step down rings cost around £2.00 each, or you can buy the full set of 49mm t0 72mm for £8.00 on Amazon

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,970Gear list
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to ropausa, Feb 14, 2013

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection. Considering the high cost of a "good" filter, it's hard for me to justify on my inexpensive lenses, and on an expensive lens, would I want to compromise the IQ at all?

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I use the Canon 28 to 300mm L lens. It comes with a very impressive looking lens hood. But if the lens hood does not vignette at 28mm it does nothing in the way of protecting against flare at 300mm. If it did work effectively at 300mm it would vignette badly at 28mm. So I leave a Heliopan Digital filter on the lens at all times for both protection and improved colors.

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms.  For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end.  But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ropausa
Regular MemberPosts: 177
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to GaryW, Feb 14, 2013

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection. Considering the high cost of a "good" filter, it's hard for me to justify on my inexpensive lenses, and on an expensive lens, would I want to compromise the IQ at all?

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I use the Canon 28 to 300mm L lens. It comes with a very impressive looking lens hood. But if the lens hood does not vignette at 28mm it does nothing in the way of protecting against flare at 300mm. If it did work effectively at 300mm it would vignette badly at 28mm. So I leave a Heliopan Digital filter on the lens at all times for both protection and improved colors.

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms. For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end. But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No protection at any focal length from stuff coming at the lens from straight ahead and only partially at many angles to the front of the lens. A hood does not cover the lens.

And regardless of the range of the zoom. A hood made for the zoom is designed only to work at the widest zoom setting. The hood for my 16 to 35 Canon L is pretty good at 16mm but almost worthless at 35mm and this isn't a "Super Zoom".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,970Gear list
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to ropausa, Feb 15, 2013

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection.....

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms. For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end. But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No protection at any focal length from stuff coming at the lens from straight ahead and only partially at many angles to the front of the lens. A hood does not cover the lens.

What small or narrow object is coming at your lens?  The only likely way I'm going to damage a lens is bumping against something (like a wall or pole) or dropping the lens.  In these cases, the hood is not any worse than a filter (and maybe better?).  And I can't think of any lens where I've managed to damage the front element, so I guess I'm willing to take my chances.

As far as IQ, not covering the lens is a good thing.

And regardless of the range of the zoom. A hood made for the zoom is designed only to work at the widest zoom setting. The hood for my 16 to 35 Canon L is pretty good at 16mm but almost worthless at 35mm and this isn't a "Super Zoom".

I find it hard to believe that the hood for the 18-55 would be useless at 55mm, for example.  It still will prevent light from coming in the sides at steep angles, just not blocking as much as it could from some angles.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ropausa
Regular MemberPosts: 177
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to GaryW, Feb 15, 2013

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection.....

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms. For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end. But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No protection at any focal length from stuff coming at the lens from straight ahead and only partially at many angles to the front of the lens. A hood does not cover the lens.

What small or narrow object is coming at your lens? The only likely way I'm going to damage a lens is bumping against something (like a wall or pole) or dropping the lens. In these cases, the hood is not any worse than a filter (and maybe better?). And I can't think of any lens where I've managed to damage the front element, so I guess I'm willing to take my chances.

As far as IQ, not covering the lens is a good thing.

And regardless of the range of the zoom. A hood made for the zoom is designed only to work at the widest zoom setting. The hood for my 16 to 35 Canon L is pretty good at 16mm but almost worthless at 35mm and this isn't a "Super Zoom".

I find it hard to believe that the hood for the 18-55 would be useless at 55mm, for example. It still will prevent light from coming in the sides at steep angles, just not blocking as much as it could from some angles.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

Smoke, sand, wind borne things.

As for your 18 to 55. Think about it. If your hood blocks light at 55mm then it has to vignette at 18mm. No choice about it. An effective 55mm hood has a smaller opening then an 18mm hood.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,970Gear list
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to ropausa, Feb 15, 2013

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection.....

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms. For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end. But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No protection at any focal length from stuff coming at the lens from straight ahead and only partially at many angles to the front of the lens. A hood does not cover the lens.

What small or narrow object is coming at your lens? The only likely way I'm going to damage a lens is bumping against something (like a wall or pole) or dropping the lens. In these cases, the hood is not any worse than a filter (and maybe better?). And I can't think of any lens where I've managed to damage the front element, so I guess I'm willing to take my chances.

As far as IQ, not covering the lens is a good thing.

And regardless of the range of the zoom. A hood made for the zoom is designed only to work at the widest zoom setting. The hood for my 16 to 35 Canon L is pretty good at 16mm but almost worthless at 35mm and this isn't a "Super Zoom".

I find it hard to believe that the hood for the 18-55 would be useless at 55mm, for example. It still will prevent light from coming in the sides at steep angles, just not blocking as much as it could from some angles.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

Smoke, sand, wind borne things.

A filter nor hood will protect sand from getting inside the zoom mechanism.  I've not had any front element damaged from the elements.  I don't smoke, but I think that, too, would be pulled inside the lens when zooming.

As for your 18 to 55. Think about it. If your hood blocks light at 55mm then it has to vignette at 18mm. No choice about it. An effective 55mm hood has a smaller opening then an 18mm hood.

Less effective does not equal not effective.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ropausa
Regular MemberPosts: 177
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to GaryW, Feb 15, 2013

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:

GaryW wrote:

These sound like more reasons not to bother with a UV filter. I read a long time ago that you can put the hood on and consider that that offers some protection.....

The above effect will also be true of any other zoom lens with a hood, unless the hood is adjustable or you use a compendium. A non-adjustable hood on a zoom will always be designed for the widest focal length of the zoom and never for the longest focal length.

Good thing I don't use superzooms. For more modest zooms, I disagree that the hood would be useless against flare at the long end. But more to the original topic, even a "bad" hood would offer protection to the front element to some extent.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

No protection at any focal length from stuff coming at the lens from straight ahead and only partially at many angles to the front of the lens. A hood does not cover the lens.

What small or narrow object is coming at your lens? The only likely way I'm going to damage a lens is bumping against something (like a wall or pole) or dropping the lens. In these cases, the hood is not any worse than a filter (and maybe better?). And I can't think of any lens where I've managed to damage the front element, so I guess I'm willing to take my chances.

As far as IQ, not covering the lens is a good thing.

And regardless of the range of the zoom. A hood made for the zoom is designed only to work at the widest zoom setting. The hood for my 16 to 35 Canon L is pretty good at 16mm but almost worthless at 35mm and this isn't a "Super Zoom".

I find it hard to believe that the hood for the 18-55 would be useless at 55mm, for example. It still will prevent light from coming in the sides at steep angles, just not blocking as much as it could from some angles.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

Smoke, sand, wind borne things.

A filter nor hood will protect sand from getting inside the zoom mechanism. I've not had any front element damaged from the elements. I don't smoke, but I think that, too, would be pulled inside the lens when zooming.

As for your 18 to 55. Think about it. If your hood blocks light at 55mm then it has to vignette at 18mm. No choice about it. An effective 55mm hood has a smaller opening then an 18mm hood.

Less effective does not equal not effective.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

A filter will protect the front surface of the glass. If you want to protect the rest of the lens you need a plastic bag or an underwater housing. But things getting into the lens is not the issue with lens hoods and filters. Filters will protect the front element. A hood only marginall y. Plus a hood is ineffective at controlling flare on zoom lenses at any focal length other then the widest focal length. Unless you use an adjustable length hood or a compendium. And any hood offers no protection to dust, sand, smoke when a filter is not used and the contaniments are blowing towards the front of the lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,978Gear list
Like?
You'd think he was selling filters...
In reply to GaryW, Feb 15, 2013

GaryW wrote:

ropausa wrote:


Smoke, sand, wind borne things.

A filter nor hood will protect sand from getting inside the zoom mechanism. I've not had any front element damaged from the elements. I don't smoke, but I think that, too, would be pulled inside the lens when zooming.

As for your 18 to 55. Think about it. If your hood blocks light at 55mm then it has to vignette at 18mm. No choice about it. An effective 55mm hood has a smaller opening then an 18mm hood.

Less effective does not equal not effective.

You won't sway this guy from his nearly fanatical advocacy of Heliopan filters, Gary. It's almost like he was selling them or something.

In fact, he's been asked, more than once, if he has any affiliation with them, if he's a dealer, distributor, or rep, and he's declined to answer, every single time. I've noticed he's also like that about Giottos tripods, and Novoflex equipment, too.

I think what we have here is an old-fashioned shill, someone definitely associated with those companies, but without the moral fortitude to come right out and admit it.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,978Gear list
Like?
Again, are you affiliated with Heliopan?
In reply to ropausa, Feb 15, 2013

ropausa, almost all your posts here advocate products from Giottos, Heliopan, or Novoflex. You often get very aggressive and defensive in your advocacy of these brands. Because of this, you have been asked before if you have some sort of affiliation with them, and declined to answer.

I think that's something that really needs to be clarified, as there appears to be a large conflict of interest here. Do you have any financial connection with any of those brands? Are you a compensated representative of any of them? A distributor, marketer, or spokesperson, perhaps?

It's not a hard question, nothing that requires  the wisdom of Salomon to answer. Take a minute and reassure us that you're not some sort of corporate shill, because your credibility is plummeting on this site.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,978Gear list
Like?
A "digital filter" won't improve colors.
In reply to ropausa, Feb 15, 2013

ropausa wrote:

I use the Canon 28 to 300mm L lens. It comes with a very impressive looking lens hood. But if the lens hood does not vignette at 28mm it does nothing in the way of protecting against flare at 300mm. If it did work effectively at 300mm it would vignette badly at 28mm. So I leave a Heliopan Digital filter on the lens at all times for both protection and improved colors.

How old a camera are you using, ropausa?

Every reasonably current DSLR and mirrorless camera has a decent dichroic "hot mirror" and UV blocker in the filter pack over the sensor, so the "digital filter" will have no noticeable effect. It's a relic of the early days of digital. Canon started adding that level of filtration over 10 years ago, and the rest of the camera makers soon followed suit. None of the Sony NEX or SLT lines will get any benefit, at all, from a digital filter.

Be careful, ropausa, there's a lot of filter salespeople spreading some really bad  information about filters. Investigate a little more thoroughly before you get hoodwinked into any more gimmicks like a "digital filter".

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,970Gear list
Like?
Re: A "digital filter" won't improve colors.
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Feb 16, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

.... None of the Sony NEX or SLT lines will get any benefit, at all, from a digital filter.

Be careful, ropausa, there's a lot of filter salespeople spreading some really bad information about filters. Investigate a little more thoroughly before you get hoodwinked into any more gimmicks like a "digital filter".

Next you'll tell me I shouldn't buy $100 HDMI cables, or $1000 speaker cables.  

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TOF guy
Forum ProPosts: 10,709Gear list
Like?
Hoods protect a lens better than a filter
In reply to ropausa, Feb 17, 2013

A filter will protect the front surface of the glass.

To some degree.

Filters will protect the front element. A hood only marginally.

It would seem so since a filter is in front of the lens. However it is the exact opposite in practice: the filter sometimes fail to protect a front element (not frequent, but not rare either), while the hood is very effective at protecting the lens (not just the front element).

There are two issues with filters:

  • They may shatter, and the piece of filters may scratch the front element behind the filter. This happens more than one would think, see for instance this thread
  • The filter does not absorb any of the impact. It attaches tightly to the front element and communicate the whole force of the impact to the lens. The result may be internal damage to the lens even if the front element stays intact (see the thread I pointed to for people who have had that exact experience). By contrast the hood breaks the fall, and, if the impact is severe, will pass the brunt of the energy to the spring which connects it to the lens. The hood will become useless because the spring and clipping mechanism will be toast. But a hood is cheap to replace, and the lens will be fine.

Filters often work, but not as well as a hood.

-- hide signature --

Thierry -

 TOF guy's gear list:TOF guy's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LifeIsAVerb
Contributing MemberPosts: 970
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to DtEW, Feb 17, 2013

DtEW wrote:

There are lots of threads in this forum about the subject of filters if you just do a search. There are plenty of people who use filters for protection and effects, and plenty that don't. And also plenty of people that evangelize in whatever direction they chose, as if it was The One And Only Truth™. Those people are stupid.

Well, you called that one right! It's not even clear what OP was really asking about, but there sure are a lot of, uh, opinions on the matter.

Using a filter purely for protection is a decision each person should make based on the conditions they usually shoot in.

When i worked as a photojournalist and freelanced, using equipment nearly every day for a dozen years, the skylight or uv filters never came off the lenses (except to put a different kind of filter on). The filters got banged, scratched, dented, splattered, and eventually replaced if necessary. The glass on the lenses, which i still have, looks pretty much like it did when i bought them.

For occasional use, in clean environments, and if one is careful, using a filter purely or mainly for lens protection is probably less of a factor.

Yes, any piece of glass in front of the lens will, theoretically degrade the image, but probably not to an extent that would make any meaningful difference in most cases. Exception being, perhaps, in cases where a point light source in the image might cause flare from the added surface of a filter.

As for brands, this info. is a few years old, but it's an objective attempt to determine the performance of a number of brands of uv filters at that point in time…

UV filters test; Description of the results and summary

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sonyman12
Forum MemberPosts: 82Gear list
Like?
Re: 49mm UV filter /protective filter for nex 5n
In reply to malch, Feb 20, 2013

malch wrote:

sonyman12 wrote:

tell me examples! hoya

for kit 18-55

In my view, it's not worth keeping a protective filter on a cheap kit lens in the normal course of events. If you're shooting in a very hostile environment (welding, salt water spray, or something like that) I suppose there's a case.

When I do use filters they are always good quality and multicoated (Hoya or B+W).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0000BZL2Y/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0

This is ok?

 sonyman12's gear list:sonyman12's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads