Sorry, this deal has expired. Get notified of deals like this in the future. Add Deal Alert for this Item
Frontpage Deal

Manfrotto 77mm Professional Protect UV Filter EXPIRED

$12
$49.88
+ Free Shipping
+39 Deal Score
14,125 Views
Adorama.com has Manfrotto 77mm Professional Protect UV Filter on sale for $11.95. Shipping is free. Thanks iconian
Share
Good deal?
You gave thanks to iconian for this post.
Thank you!
iconian posted this deal. Say thanks!

Original Post

Written by
Edited August 29, 2019 at 11:54 AM by
deal [adorama.com]

$12 + free s/h
If you purchase something through a post on our site, Slickdeals may get a small share of the sale.
Deal
Score
+39
14,125 Views
$12
$49.88

53 Comments

1 2 3 4

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2009
L10: Grand Master
7,651 Posts
1,030 Reputation
#46
Quote from Stroker
:
I put B+W filters on everything. Slim profile looks perfect and the UV look completely empty to the naked eye the glass is so clear. I only take one off if I'm swapping. Haven't put a lens cap on anything in years.
UV is unnecessary - just a clear one (a good one of course). I almost never use them myself, just when i'm working in bad conditions. will always be a debate about using them or not, i don't worry about that - it's just sad to see so many comments about the 'uv' portion which is a carryover from the film days.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2009
L10: Grand Master
7,651 Posts
1,030 Reputation
#47

Quote from coheedcollapse
:
I've heard people suggest that they'd technically reduce haze, but I've never actually seen any proof of it.

I primarily use it for mostly transparent lens protection. Myself and pretty much every person I know who shoots on a daily basis doesn't have time to baby lenses when shooting. Dirty lens? Take care of it with your shirt. I feel better doing that with a UV filter on.

If you want to use a filter for protection, use a good clear filter - all this talk of it needing to be 'UV' is nonsense (not really directed at you, just so many comments here and no one pointing this out). A filter something like this...

https://www.adorama.com/bw77xsp7n.html?origterm=b+%2b+w+77mm+xs-pro+clear+mrc+nano+%23007m+filter&searchredirect=true

Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2010
L3: Novice
296 Posts
80 Reputation
#48
Quote from woodygg
:
not sure why these threads bring out so much ignorance...
If you dont know any better, it's probably best you dont troll a thread.

Now what's that saying again... Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt

Seems rather fitting
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2007
L2: Beginner
48 Posts
18 Reputation
#49
Quote from grindswiss
:
Just make sure to remove when doing low light photography
Quote from grindswiss
:
If you dont know any better, it's probably best you dont troll a thread.

Now what's that saying again... Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt

Seems rather fitting
Actually woodygg is right and you are wrong. A good "UV" protection filter has a transmission rate of about 99% which means there is almost no light loss at all.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
L7: Teacher
2,105 Posts
118 Reputation
#50
It's not a UV filter, OP need to fix the title.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2007
L4: Apprentice
439 Posts
70 Reputation
#51
Quote from woodygg
:
UV is unnecessary - just a clear one (a good one of course). I almost never use them myself, just when i'm working in bad conditions. will always be a debate about using them or not, i don't worry about that - it's just sad to see so many comments about the 'uv' portion which is a carryover from the film days.
Oh I totally agree with that. UV filter is completely unnecessary and really does nothing. That said, this is essentially a "clear" filter, since what it's blocking is already blocked by default by the camera sensor. I'm just banking on Manfrotto making a decent, mostly transparent filter for more sketchy jobs.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2010
L3: Novice
296 Posts
80 Reputation
#52
Quote from tctmp
:
Actually woodygg is right and you are wrong. A good "UV" protection filter has a transmission rate of about 99% which means there is almost no light loss at all.
It's not light loss, it's reflections thats the issue. The front element reflects light and then the light reflects again off the filter. That will show up on your photos, every time

Doesnt matter how good the glass is either. I used to take a lot of pictures in low light and always had to remove my uv protective filters, regardless of the brand
Reply Helpful Comment? 1 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Mar 2006
L8: Grand Teacher
3,171 Posts
386 Reputation
#53
IMO, its worth it to have a protection filter. I have had my lens kicked in the protected front element during a break dancing competition. I have a lens with a tiny chip in it, and I have bought lenses where the coating was "rubbed" off.

A good filter wont noticeably effect the image, and can protect the lens against you over cleaning it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2010
L2: Beginner
67 Posts
24 Reputation
#54
This item is no longer available.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 4 of 4
1 2 3 4
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2019. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard