UV/protection filter recommendations

If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one.

I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon.
It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer
element.
So I need to buy one.
However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive.
So, I'd like to consider my options.
Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why):

brand X
Sunpak
Adorama
Kenko
Hoya
Tiffen
B+W
others?

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?

~ Scenic Man ~

"scenic_man" wrote in message
news:3anfh.1289$e26.24@trndny04...
If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one.

I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon.
It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer
element.
So I need to buy one.
However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive.
So, I'd like to consider my options.
Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why):

brand X
Sunpak
Adorama
Kenko
Hoya
Tiffen
B+W
others?

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?

~ Scenic Man ~

If you've really got your heart set on a filter, then this probably won't
help. but what I usually do is to buy a metal, screw-on lens cap. This does
an excellent job of protecting the lens when I'm not shooting, and when I
am, I usually don't need any protection anyway. Now, there are exceptions,
like when I am shooting in an unfriendly environment....During a sandstorm,
or on a small boat, where there might be salt spray or the like. But the cap
is a first, cheap, approximation of, "protection".

"scenic_man" wrote in message
news:3anfh.1289$e26.24@trndny04...
If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one.

I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon.
It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer
element.
So I need to buy one.
However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive.
So, I'd like to consider my options.
Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why):

brand X
Sunpak
Adorama
Kenko
Hoya
Tiffen
B+W
others?

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?

~ Scenic Man ~

Go with the B+W if you 'want' a filter. My cheapo's are in the trash.

Cheers

"scenic_man" wrote in message
news:3anfh.1289$e26.24@trndny04...
If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one.

I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon.
It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer
element.
So I need to buy one.
However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive.
So, I'd like to consider my options.
Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why):

brand X
Sunpak
Adorama
Kenko
Hoya
Tiffen
B+W
others?

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?

~ Scenic Man ~

Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all the
others. I cannot recall the name they gave to that filter, but perhaps
someone else can clarify this for us.

Hoya has three grades of filters. The lowest grade is cheaply made and
should be avoided. Their multicoated filters are good, but they are priced
up there with the Heliopans and B+Ws.

The Sunpaks, Kenkos, Adoramas and other filters are probably no-name filters
badged with whatever brand name. They are probably not ground to be
perfectly parallel and they will probably result in an unacceptable degree
of image degradation.

If you want the best quality at the lowest price, I'd suggest Heliopan. You
may also find them on eBay. Be careful of Hoya on eBay because they are
virtually all the cheapest grade of Hoya filters, and the sellers are
exploiting people's lack of knowledge about Hoya.

I am a Pentax man, and I use Pentax filters exclusively. I've gotten
several on eBay and they arrived in excellent condition. I use filters to
protect all of my lenses because it is extremely difficult to find
replacement lenses in excellent condition. My SMC Takumars have been out of
production for over 30 years, and it is not like I can just order up new
ones if my existing ones become damaged. I have not had to clean the front
elements of my lenses in years, because the filters take the brunt of any
grunge from air pollution, or smudges from my fingers (I am always smudging
filter surfaces). So, for me, filters make a lot of sense. Their major
benefit for me is that they keep my lenses clean, not so much that they
protect the front elements from physical damage.

Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might
degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as much
as 10%.

I have heard that Pentax filters are actually made by Olympus, but I have
found no way to confirm that rumor.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:36:13 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:

The Sunpaks, Kenkos, Adoramas and other filters are probably no-name filters
badged with whatever brand name. They are probably not ground to be
perfectly parallel and they will probably result in an unacceptable degree
of image degradation.

Sunpak has started selling a pretty reasonable multicoated clear filter,
but I suspect they are still a step below the top brands:
http://www.2filter.com/sunpak/sunpakuv.html

Kenko filters are typically rebadged Hoya's.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

If this is the wrong group, please direct me to the correct one.

I recently bought a second-hand Tamron 200-400mm zoom for my Nikon.
It didn't come with a UV or other filter to physically protect the outer
element.
So I need to buy one.
However, at 77mm, the first-tier filters (B+W etc) are *really* expensive.
So, I'd like to consider my options.
Would anyone care to recommend for or against (and why):

brand X
Sunpak
Adorama
Kenko
Hoya
Tiffen
B+W
others?

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?

~ Scenic Man ~


This is the one I recommend, and the best deal I think. Tiffen Haze 2A, blocks
100% of UV light. I bought this one for my Tamron SP 70-210 3.5 @ 62mm,
from Adorama:
http://www.adorama.com/Search-Result...%202 A%2077mm

--
})))* Giant_Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

jeremy wrote:

Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all the
others. I cannot recall the name they gave to that filter, but perhaps
someone else can clarify this for us.

Most Tiffen filters use the same dyes as the Wratten gel filters.
I believe that the dye layer in most Tiffen filters is in the
adhesive between two pieces of glass. Filters with the
dye in the glass are generally a better idea for optical
reasons: a sandwich filter can suffer mechanical damage
which is practically invisible to the naked eye, but which
can cause serious optical problems. The advantage is that
the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin
is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass.

The Tiffen "haze 1" is very effective against UV light without
cutting out any visible light. The Tiffen "haze 2A" is even
more effective but also cuts a little at the extreme violet
end of the spectrum.

If you really need to cut UV than either the Tiffen filters
or the Wratten 1 or 2A gels will be very effective.
If you really want "lens protection" then you are better
off with a filter that uses a single layer of optical glass.

I rarely use filters for "lens protection" unless I know
I'm going to be in a hostile environment, but I did once
drop my Praktica lens first on pavement. The orange filter
I had on the lens had its filter ring dented quite badly,
and the back of the camera popped off, but no other harm
seems to have been done.

Peter.
--

"Peter Irwin" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:

Tiffen makes a UV filter that is purported to outperform virtually all
the
others. I cannot recall the name they gave to that filter, but perhaps
someone else can clarify this for us.

Most Tiffen filters use the same dyes as the Wratten gel filters.
I believe that the dye layer in most Tiffen filters is in the
adhesive between two pieces of glass. Filters with the
dye in the glass are generally a better idea for optical
reasons: a sandwich filter can suffer mechanical damage
which is practically invisible to the naked eye, but which
can cause serious optical problems. The advantage is that
the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or gelatin
is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass.

These two statements don't "gel". (Pun intended)
1. Filters with the dye in the glass are generally a better idea for
optical reasons.

and:

2.The advantage is that the range of dyes which can be used on adhesive or
gelatin is much greater than the range of dyes that can be used in glass.

So which is better? - The filters with the dyes in the glass, or the filters
with the dyes in the adhesive?

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:xAofh.3223$Li6.522@trndny03...

Erwin Puts, the Leica specialist, has estimated that a good filter might
degrade your image by 2%, while a cheap filter might degrade it by as much
as 10%.

2% or 10% of what quantity?

scenic_man wrote:

Also, would anyone care to discuss the relative (dis)advantages
of using UV, Sky1A, Sky1B, etc for this purpose?


A UV filter is a clear, colourless filter. Skylight 1A adds a subtle
warm tint, either pink or yellow, depending on brand, and Skylight 1B
adds a slightly stronger tint, although the effect is still subtle.

If you want a filter mainly for protection of the front element of
your lens, the UV is the one to go for, unless you actually want the
warm tint of a Skylight 1A or 1B. Your choice!