A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 30D EF-S 18-55 Filters...

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Go-To Photo-Editing Apps Read More

4 Go-To Photo-Editing Apps

There are an overwhelming number of photo-editing apps out there. Where to begin? We asked 4 photographers who love shooting with their smartphones to each recommend their #1 go-to app in their mobile...

Latest Learning Articles

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

Learn the basics of Portrait Photography in Part II of this video tutorial, covering the essentials on timing, posing, and cropping.


Canon 30D EF-S 18-55 Filters and Lens Hood Questions

Chris Henry , Sep 13, 2007; 01:55 p.m.

Hi, Im new to this whole DSLR scene coming from a point and shoot camera. But I had a few questions regarding the UV lens filter and a lens hood for my EF-S 18-55 58mm lens.

What brands do you recommend for these 2 items? (I heard to just get Canon's UV filter and a generic Lens hood)

And also can I just go on ebay and find these items with 58mm diameters and would these fit fine?

Thanks in advance!

Responses

Christian Sager , Sep 13, 2007; 04:15 p.m.

Whatever you do - dont buy a cheap UV filter.

I'd recomend Hoya Super Multicoated, Canon , B &W or other high quality brand.

You are much better off NOT adding one than adding a cheap one. This debate has gone on for years.

Before you spend a bunch on filters or lens hoods - are you committed to the 18-55? If not - figure out what size filter you might need for another prospective lens.

Chris Henry , Sep 13, 2007; 04:18 p.m.

For now I think im pretty much set of the 18-55. So the Canon UV Filter should be fine? Also the size, I should get the 58mm correct?

Thanks.

Leopold Stotch , Sep 13, 2007; 05:43 p.m.

"I should get the 58mm correct?"

Correct

Arie Vandervelden , Sep 13, 2007; 06:21 p.m.

I suggest looking for a circular polarizer instead of buying a UV filter.

Mars C , Sep 13, 2007; 07:35 p.m.

The 18-55, at that lo-price, does'nt deserve an expensive uv filter, If you use a cheap filter with it, you'll degrade the image further.

Just save your money to buy a better lens like the efs 17-85 IS or the efs 17-55 IS.

Alan Myers , Sep 13, 2007; 08:50 p.m.

Hi,

Personally, I'd suggest getting the matched, good-fitting Canon lens hood, and forget about the filter until you actually need one for some reason other than "protection".

The Canon hood will be the best matched to the lens nearly always. That's particularly true of an EF-S lens. Third party hoods off eBay may or may not fit well, it's anyone's guess.

Eventually you will most likely want a circular polarizer. Most other filter effects can be replicated in Photoshop or other post-processing softwares. You can use software to warm up or cool down an image, add softening, and make many other image changes that required an actual filter in the days of film. Polarizers are one of the few filters that are next to impossible to duplicate with software.

Camera stores love to sell you those profitable filters, that can all too often have degrading effects on your images and really don't offer very much "protection" (It's a thin piece of glass, for Pete's sake!).

A lens hood and the lens cap will do a far better job protecting the front of the lens from bumps. The hood also improves image quality by preventing stray light from entering at an oblique angle. There is no way a properly fitted hood can ever degrade image quality in any way.

If/when you get a filter, yes I agree, get a good quality one like Hoya Pro, B+W or Heliopan. Multi-coated are best under most circumstances, too. These aren't cheap. But, putting an inexpensive filter in front of a lens is kinda like installing retread snow tires on a Ferrari Enzo.

If you ever want to test a filter's effect, take a couple shots of a sunset: one with the filter on, the other without any filter. For the worst possible effect in this situation, install a cheap circular polarizer. Never leave one of those on your lens all the time. Even when not causing flare and loss of contrast when pointed at a sunset or other strong light source, a C-Pol will always cost you over a full stop of light, meaning you'll need slower shutter speeds with more chance of camera shake, or higher ISOs that increases the opportunity for image noise.

Colin Southern , Sep 13, 2007; 10:08 p.m.

Alan Myers wrote: "A lens hood and the lens cap will do a far better job protecting the front of the lens from bumps."

Lenscaps have been proven to degrade IQ horribly if left fitted whilst shooting (and if you remove it, you also remove the protection offered by it).

Lens hoods offer virtually no protection to the front element of a lens what-so-ever - the don't stop fingers or wet noses - or wind-blown sand. In the case of tree branches they can actually guide the branch right onto the lens. In the event of a collision they pop right off.

Bob O'Sullivan , Sep 13, 2007; 11:06 p.m.

This is always a fun debate. I find that lens caps always pop of in the bag or at otherwise inopertune moments exposing hte lens to hazzards. If shooting near water, sand, beach, snow, windy, dusty environments, I use a decent (canon) UV filter. I can see the difference between a good lens and a cheap one, or a better sensor vs a older technology, but I've not been able to "see" the difference, if any in having a decent UV in front of the lens. However, in controlled environments, indoors, studio, I do remove the UV filters. The way I see it, why not spend an extra $40 per lens for some added protection. The point of not wasting money on a cheap lenses filter does also make sense to me though.

Chris Henry , Sep 24, 2007; 11:50 a.m.

Thanks alot for all your great responses and helpfull ideas. I went ahead and picked up Canons uv haze filter and Canon lens hood for my 30D. Thanks once again

Back to top

Notify me of Responses