best UV/protective filter to fit under the lens hood
 

This has been discussed many times and in many threads, but frankly I still don't know what the consensus has been (if any). Now that I gave up the B+W screw-in, 77mm filters, I'm going with the 4x5.65" solution to be used with my excellent RR microMatteBox.

This is the reason I'm after an UV/protective glass filter of the highest quality. Also, I'd like it to fit under the lens hood (for those situations when I'll be shooting without any add-ons, like Letus 35mm or the RR matte box.

Which make/model is considered best for the EX1?

Piort I have been using the B+W on my EX1.

Model
B+W 77 010 UV-Haze 1x MRC
or for Clear
B+W 77 007 Neutral MRC

Both fit under the stock Sony hood fine and are very high quality glass.

Piotr
Unless I'm splashing the lens (even with spray or strem) or putting it into the wind, I don't usually put anything on the lens.
If I'm outside on my own then my Tiffen UV 77mm standard (unskinny) filter fits fine under the stock matte box.
Most times I'm like you, using a 15mm rod support system with a matte box and rectangular glass filters.
I think the reason these previous threads have been inconclusive is that there really isn't a single, definitive, best answer out there yet.
My Tiffen glass works okay, there are reflections, etc., but then again I'm not going to put a bare front lens element into harm's way unless I'm paid enough to junk the lens after the shot (e.g. as a crash cam on a high budget feature, for instance, where optical quality is paramount - right up until the lens gets smashed).

I agree if you can get away with nothing then go for it. With my type of outdoor extreme shooting I alway use a clear or UV on the front of my EX1. Also I have had problems with Tiffen filters and will now only buy B+W.

Interesting, this Tiffen problem.
Is this with new glass? Most of my glass is at least 5 years old and thus far I've not had any problems at all with any of it, from 49mm up to 4x56...

No Chris it was with Tiffen filters purchased 2003-2005. I had a lot of glass break in extreme cold and the glass and filter ring would separate often and the coating seemed low grade.

Ouch!
Thanks for the heads up!
Guess it's B&W for me too, then, at least for new glass...
Cheers!
Chris

I'm using a 77mm Marumi UV Digital filter from day one and I must say I'm really pleased with it. Virtually no reflections or distortions whatsoever and pretty cheap for the quality.

I don't think they sell those in the US. But we do have the B&W filters here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ion_Clear.html

I have always used Hoya filters for many years. Anything wrong with those?

John

Paul,

I understand that both are double-threaded filters, right?

The reason I'm asking is that with my various configurations (like with RedRock micro Matte Box which needs screwing on the step-down hood, or Letus Extreme which needs screwing on the mounting ring), my camera's lens is without any protection very often while I'm handling it. I'm afraid I'll scratch the lens sooner or later, so I'd like to put and leave permanently on a relatively cheap piece of glass on it, which I wouldn't need to remove even when attaching the matte box (with it own 4x5.65" filters, like Grad ND or Pola), or the Letus adapter...

With this in mind, should I go for a clear, or UV (haze) filter?

I've used tiffen and hoya, for years as a still photog, then on my vid cams. i always struggled with the hazy look, thinking my cam needed back focus adjustment. images seemed to lack contrast. as soon as i decided to bite the bullet and work without any filters, whatsoever, the problem...ahem...cleared up. I agree with chris, whenever possible shoot without filters. no such thing as an invisible piece of glass, i don't care what quality it is. brewster angles on a lens filter are way too shallow to be useful. coatings don't work very effectively at near vertical angles of incidence. reflections and flare are unavoidable.

u say u want to protect that lens? fine, nothing is free, there's always a trade-off.

If you're camera is your bread and butter and you shoot outdoors or in an uncontrolled environment with a bare lens I'd go with the B&W UV/Haze MRC F-pro or slim version. F-pro has a front thread for stacking. The slim doesn't but it's lighter. Both will fit under the EX1 hood. I'd be interested in seeing A/B image samples if anybody believes these particular filters visibly degrade the image or produce undesirable glare.

Thanks guys for your answers so far. My main question remains unanswered though: if I leave such a filter on camera permanently, would it conflict with some special filters in my matte box, like e.g. the circular polarizer?

OK, it might sound silly: why use a screw-on filter when I have a matte box with 4x5.65" filters? So I'll explain again, that the main purpose is to have some protective glass on my camera lens at all times - especially when I attach the matte box or the 35mm adaptor (the stock lens hood must be removed, which exposes the lens to all types of hazards). But, would it make sense to use an UV filter - doesn't it need to be the outermost optical element?

I hope it's more clear now :)

BTW, does anyone know what's the max filter thickness to still fit under the stock lens hood?

For instance, the Hoya UV HMC SUPER Pro1 77mm filter is 3 mm thick...

Resident filter
 

Given the issues with the IR spectrum, why not leave a 486 IR cut filter, with its filter factor of 1, on the lens in perpetuity and negate the need for a change from a UV to the aforementioned?

Leica M8's or 8.2's exhibit the same IR issues that, for the most part, have been resolved by use of a Leica supplied IR cut filter that most leave on their lenses at all times, unless, the situation calls for a different filter arrangement.