Need A Filter for my 24-105L

[KCmike]

Any recommendations for this size lens? Obviously looking for a good bang for your buck option. Really something to protect the lens and still give good performance. Hoya any good?

 

[nbaresejr]

Hoya makes good filters. I have an HD CPL and a 9 stop ND.

As far as protection I prefer to just use the lens good. Have you completely ruled that out vs. the filter?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Hood. No lens cap. EVER. Just MHO. Lots of pros agree.

I stopped using filters a couple of years ago with NO regrets.

I have one to fit it. Wanna buy it?

 

[xlxo]

Hmm....

• Specs say you need a 77mm filter. This is a common filter size for pro-lenses.
• How much is a UV filter? How much does it cost to fix or replace that lens? Look at your current lenses... is there dust and water spots? Do you want to wipe and smear that lens element with all that expensive coating? Having that extra protection may be worth it.
• Look for an MRC or multi-coat filter to minimize reflections
  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756191-REG/B_W_1066125_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html
• Consider a Nikon NC protective filter. The NC is neutral color for protection. UV filters change the color slightly.
  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/121298-REG/Nikon_2482_77mm_Clear_NC_Glass.html
• Avoid plastic threads... look for metal threads that are less likely to stick.
• Consider going filterless in low-light situations.

Yes I use my hood. Please use the hood properly to shade the lens barrel and not cover the zoom ring.

 

[Pixel Dust]

Hood. No lens cap. EVER. Just MHO. Lots of pros agree.

I stopped using filters a couple of years ago with NO regrets.

I have one to fit it. Wanna buy it?

This.

Though, I will use a CPL or ND filters.

If you really do want a filter to protect it, just get a clear filter (multi-coated to reduce flare). There's no point in getting a UV filter. Nearly all camera sensors have built-in UV and IR filters and calibrated to them. Adding a UV filter will never improve image quality. And UV costs more than clear, anyway.

UV filters are products of the film era. Where 35mm film is sensitive to UV light. If you are shooting film, or if you removed the filter from the sensor, then yes, use it.

 

[Skywise]

This.

Though, I will use a CPL or ND filters.

If you really do want a filter to protect it, just get a clear filter (multi-coated to reduce flare). There's no point in getting a UV filter. Nearly all camera sensors have built-in UV and IR filters and calibrated to them. Adding a UV filter will never improve image quality. And UV costs more than clear, anyway.

UV filters are products of the film era. Where 35mm film is sensitive to UV light. If you are shooting film, or if you removed the filter from the sensor, then yes, use it.

Now I'll add that I still use my UV filter for weather sealing if conditions call for it. But yeah, otherwise I shoot nekkid these days! (With the occasional usage of the CP or star filter!)

 

[photo_chick]

I just use a hood unless I need a filter for a specific effect that can't be replicated in editing. I don't even worry about it for weather sealing.

I bashed my lens (24-105 L) against a cement bench not too long ago. It hit hood first. If I'd just had a filter I probably would have smashed the filter and done some damage, at least scratches, to the front element of my lens. But I had a hood on. It scuffed my hood but didn't damage my front element at all.

Filters, even the best quality, can cause some nasty aberrations. I've seen some wicked nasty ghosting. Who has that Tower of Terror shot at night? That is an excellent example why you should avoid a filter that's only for protection.

 

[TheLovins]

This.

Though, I will use a CPL or ND filters.

If you really do want a filter to protect it, just get a clear filter (multi-coated to reduce flare). There's no point in getting a UV filter. Nearly all camera sensors have built-in UV and IR filters and calibrated to them. Adding a UV filter will never improve image quality. And UV costs more than clear, anyway.

UV filters are products of the film era. Where 35mm film is sensitive to UV light. If you are shooting film, or if you removed the filter from the sensor, then yes, use it.

The hood is a great option, but if you have kids, I would still think about putting a UV on there. My daughter has touched the lens a time or two while walking through the park with sticky fingers. Hoya, Tiffen both will do a good job without killing an image.

 

[SkaGoat]

The hood is a great option, but if you have kids, I would still think about putting a UV on there. My daughter has touched the lens a time or two while walking through the park with sticky fingers. Hoya, Tiffen both will do a good job without killing an image.

That's what the microfibre cloth in your bag is for.

No filter is how I roll, and have rolled that way for a long time, I don't baby my lenses, and have no scratches on any of them.

Remember, the front element on your lens is designed to take a certain amount of abuse, it's also usually the cheapest element to have replaced, and any scratches you may accrue will rarely show up unless your are using really high f/ stops (think f/16 and higher).

The only thing that may occur due to a scratch on your front element is making it more susceptible to flaring.

 

[photo_chick]

The hood is a great option, but if you have kids, I would still think about putting a UV on there. My daughter has touched the lens a time or two while walking through the park with sticky fingers. Hoya, Tiffen both will do a good job without killing an image.

My kids have known since they were old enough to understand what no means that they don't touch mama's camera. And as stated by a PP, if the lens gets something on it you just clean it. It's not going to scratch or be damaged as long as you use the appropriate cloths and solution to clean it.

 

[KCmike]

Thanks everyone for their advice. Much appreciated.