Filter For CZ 24-70 2.8 Which one

[rollsman4]

  I usually never use filters over my lenses. But now for some reason I think I should especially on this Expensive lens. I use it on my Sony A99.  I just want a CLEAR ( NO UV) To protect it. is a 77mm and I know it can get expensive thats why I hope there is a Filter that is Excellent and NOT break the bank.  Thank you

[MickDK]

For digital It doesn't matter whether is UV or just a protect filter.

 

Hoya UV HMC filters are both cheap and very good, they beat most of the more expensive brands:

 

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

 

"The first three winners will definitely be a surprise for most experienced photographers (as they were for us). Three of the top four filters are manufactured by the same firm – Hoya – which handily took first and second place."

 

Note that it is different regarding Hoyas CPL filters, here it is the Fusion series that seems to be best.

[Wesley]

  I usually never use filters over my lenses. But now for some reason I think I should especially on this Expensive lens. I use it on my Sony A99.  I just want a CLEAR ( NO UV) To protect it. is a 77mm and I know it can get expensive thats why I hope there is a Filter that is Excellent and NOT break the bank.  Thank you

 

UV or clear; not much difference on a digital camera.

You want to go the right path than get the Zeiss T* UV filter. They don't make clear unfortunately.

https://www.google.com/search?q=zeiss+77mm+t*&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

I know Nikon has clear filters though.

[Guest Peter Kelly]

Unless you frequently shoot in a hostile environment (salt spray, desert storms, welding shop) then there is absolutely no point.

 

By definition the light will be degraded, even just the tiniest amount. It may never be noticable, but it might just affect the shot under certain conditions at the wrong time!

As to protection, any impact that wouldn't smash a filter would likely be shrugged of by the much harder front element. If, however, you suffer an impact that does smash the filter then the broken shards of glass produced are likely to be the cause of any further damage. In addition, if the impact is so severe minor scratches to the front element will be the least of your worries! The whole lens will most likely be knocked out of true and cause other damage to the focussing and zooming mechanisms.

 

The lens hood is always the very best protection to ward off impacts and cushion any falls, so keep it on all the time. Don't worry about any marks on the front elements as tests show, time and time again, that you will never see the effect.

In fact, you are less likely to see any consequence of front element damage than if you use a filter. THEY ARE A WASTE OF MONEY!

 

P.S.

 

By the way, your posting history is a little odd, so please reply to prove you are not just trolling

[jeff]

"...Don't worry about any marks on the front elements as tests show, time and time again, that you will never see the effect.

In fact, you are less likely to see any consequence of front element damage than if you use a filter. THEY ARE A WASTE OF MONEY!"

 

WOW! Peter you are not burdened wearing glasses are you?  Any chance you've ever used a star filter?  

 

to the OP:  this is got to be the worst piece of advice I've read on the internet maybe next to using canned air to clean a sensor.  Yes it's a very good idea to use a skylight filter at most all times if for anything else not having to clean the front element and only having to clean a filter that can be easily replaced.  Over the years that filter has saved me more times than I can remember.

 

Buy what you can afford but remember the biggest difference between a multi-coated filter and a cheaper variety is wether you are shading the front of the lens from any glare; lens hood, flag, your hand, etc.

[Guest Peter Kelly]

Wow, 101, you're definitely not an experienced photographer are you!

 

As to 'star filters' that is not what the original question was about; this was concerning one for protection.

To repeat, they are a complete and utter waste of money. I doubt you will find a single pro worth his salt using one.

 

You say that a filter can be 'easily replaced'. Well if you were buying one that has very little effect on the quality of the shot, you're looking at £100 a pop. Replace them often, do you?

But there never will be such 'damage' and here's some examples:

 

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches

 

Furthermore, a skylight filter has very little merit regarding digital. Skylight, of various types, was created to counteract the effect of UV light giving a washed out 'bluish' appearance to film emulsion.

[mkg3]

The only filter I've ever used is CPL on bright sunny days, where the light reflection is severe.

 

I do keep the lens hood on most of the time and the cap whenever not in use.

 

Just picked up Hoya Fusion Antistatic 72mm for SEL70200G.

[jeff]

"Wow, 101, you're definitely not an experienced photographer are you!

 

As to 'star filters' that is not what the original question was about; this was concerning one for protection.

To repeat, they are a complete and utter waste of money. I doubt you will find a single pro worth his salt using one."

My website is listed where is your's?  How much experience do you have if you do not know how a star filter is made?  I know plenty of pros that use protection :-)))  (Beavis  and Butthead joke)

 

those links mean nothing because they don't question what a scratch on the front element will cause? Try some night shots. Although I'm sure if you returned a lens to them in that condition they would charge your card. For them not to question a scratch on the front element or how damaging mis-cleaning a lens can be to the coating basically means anyone buying a used lens from them is an idiot.

 

 

Peter don't respond without a link to your website

[Guest Peter Kelly]

I do have a website, but have no intention of engaging in a pi$$ing contest.

 

I've been a professional photographer for more years than I care to remember and know exactly what a star filter is, what it does, how it does it, and even how it's made; I never suggested otherwise.

You can crack as many puerile jokes as you like, but it won't diminish the truth that filters for the purpose of protection are an absolute waste of money in all but the most extreme of conditions.

 

If you want to fritter your money away on them, be my guest. Given the dozens of lenses that have passed through my hands over the years and never suffered the tiniest damage despite intense use, I guess I must be hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars up compared to you!