[Matt Palmquist]

I just received a 170-500mm for my Pentax K100D that I purchased off of EBay that I got a great deal on compared to others I had been watching.

The lens came with a Filter, a Tiffen Professional 86C UV Protector. I know that people have varying opinions on Filters, but is this a good filter, or is it a cheap filter? Would I be better off taking the filter off, or leaving it on?

I really look forward to getting out and using this lens.

Thanks for any help.

Matt

[postcardcv]

filters are a hotly debated subject, some swear by them while others hate them. I've tested filters (decent ones) of a few of my lenses and have found that on long lenses they tend to noticeably degrade the image quality (I should stress that this is my experience and others will no doubt have got on better). Needless to say I don't have a filter on any of my long lenses. I think the best bet would be to take some test shots with and without the filter and see what you think.

An example to show how odd filters can be... I tested a filter on my Canon 100-400 IS and found that the effect on IQ was very obvious so I decided to not use it. I then put the same filter on my 28-70 f2.8 L, on this lens the filter had not noticeable effect on IQ, so I've kept the filter on this lens.

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

filters are a hotly debated subject, some swear by them while others hate them. I've tested filters (decent ones) of a few of my lenses and have found that on long lenses they tend to noticeably degrade the image quality (I should stress that this is my experience and others will no doubt have got on better). Needless to say I don't have a filter on any of my long lenses. I think the best bet would be to take some test shots with and without the filter and see what you think.

An example to show how odd filters can be... I tested a filter on my Canon 100-400 IS and found that the effect on IQ was very obvious so I decided to not use it. I then put the same filter on my 28-70 f2.8 L, on this lens the filter had not noticeable effect on IQ, so I've kept the filter on this lens.

I have also had similar experience with filters as Pete. I have used a good quality filter on my 400mm f5.6 and it unquestionably degrades the image but the same filter used on a 17-40 f4 is not noticeable. I never use a filter on the 400mm now but keep it on the 17-40.

[baillieswells]

I have the Sigma 170-500mm DG lens and a Sigma multicoated filter. Using the lens hood to prevent any extraneous side light I have been unable to find any difffrence with or without filter. Just my experience, others may disagree.

[joe cockram]

I also use a 170-500mm sigma (non DG) with a sigma filter and find no difference in IQ.
I guess the only real advantage of filters for wildlife photography is to keep crap off the lens, i´ve done loads of pelagic trips and the filter is always covered in salt spray by the end which needs wiping off, i certainly wouldnt like to be cleaning the lens that heavily and frequently!

Joe

[Matt Palmquist]

Thanks Guys. I will just experiment and see what differences my novice eye can see:)

Thanks,
Matt