Pro Tama UV filter?

Hello folks,

I recently purchased a new lens and with it, a Pro Tama 77mm UV filter. I'm not exactly sure why, but I'm a little worried about the filter as I can find almost no information about this company online. The filter was quite expensive, more than the Pro Kenko and almost the same price as the Pro Sigma filters, but I have a funny (and possibly irrational) fear that I've bought some kind of cheapo filter disguised as a pro filter, for which I paid $120?
Does anyone have any insight into these Pro Tama filters? Any information would be highly appreciated, particularly if said information is experiential!
Thanks kindly...

This isn't definite, but I searched on ebay for protama (all one word), and it looks like they're exported out of Hong Kong.
The prices I saw were like $15 - $20.

I pulled this from a Pentax forum...

Also, take into account, that the cheap Chinese filters use more or less window glass. That introduces a colour shift (there are numerous reviews on the net) and also degrades the image visibly. Whereas Hoya (at least the top-line filters), B+W, Heliopan filters are all made from optical glass, which is mechanically polished, quite like a camera lens.

It looks like their website use to be: http://www.protama.com.hk/ - but that was posted in 2008 and is no longer
active. So if they went out of business, I don't know.

Doug

Jack,

What lens are you using the filter on? I does make a difference, regardless of the manufacturer or filter quality. If on a telephoto, then the full aperture of the filter is used and it is difficult to keep such thin optical elements in perfect optical shape. That, combined with the focal length of a telephoto will mean any distortion will be magnified. I do not recommend the use of any front filter larger than 67 mm on any telephoto longer than 200 mm. I have more on this subject in an article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ilter_quality/

For shorter focal length, wide angle lenses, large filters are ok because the lens aperture is smaller than the full filter aperture and the magnification is less, so there are rarely optical problems.

Roger

Thanks for your help, gents...this is on the Canon 300mm f4...I had a bad feeling about this...fascinating article Roger, by the way...
I feel scared to use my lens without a protective filter, but I certainly don't want to lose any image quality...
What is the consensus here? What about folks with the bigger, better lenses? The 300mm f2.8, the 500mm f4...are we going sans UV filter? It's so devil-may-care! I love it! I'm just worried some bird will drop a turd on my nice new lens, something like that...

I just use my lens hood. I don't want to put another piece of glass in between my subject and the lens.

If you'd ask 100 photographers, probably close to 50% would go with and 50% without.

Can you return the filter and if you still like to get a uv, buy a name brand?

Doug

Hello Doug,
Indeed, that is my intention. Thanks again for your research. The more I look around, the more I see that many serious photographers go without UV filters...very interesting. This particular lens does have a snazzy built-in hood, after all...I see A LOT of articles online that mention the small mark-up on cameras & lenses and the large mark-up on UV filters...the times I've tried to buy a lens w/o a UV filter I was reprimanded but good...

Last thing: I'll add that the filter is incredibly slim, and the words on the filter's side read: Pro Tama - Japan Ultra Slim UV 77mm...cost was $120 from one of the city's most reputable camera retailers, not that that means much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Breakfast

Thanks for your help, gents...this is on the Canon 300mm f4...I had a bad feeling about this...fascinating article Roger, by the way...
I feel scared to use my lens without a protective filter, but I certainly don't want to lose any image quality...
What is the consensus here? What about folks with the bigger, better lenses? The 300mm f2.8, the 500mm f4...are we going sans UV filter? It's so devil-may-care! I love it! I'm just worried some bird will drop a turd on my nice new lens, something like that...

---

Hi Jack,

I used to use a UV filter on my 300 f/4, until I found it did reduce image quality in some situations. The hood is quite good on the 300 f/4.

Regarding larger lenses, like 300 f/2.8 and up, they do not have front filters. They have a small (52 mm if I remember correctly) drop in filter near the back of the lens. Being smaller, that is not as much of an issue, and being located in the rear of the lens system, imperfections have less impact on image quality.

Technically, digital cameras do not need UV filters because 1) the sensors are less sensitive to UV, and 2) the Bayer filters absorb UV. So they are only protective filters. I use multicoated UV filters on all my shorter focal length lenses (shorter than 300 mm) where hoods are not as effective.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Breakfast

Hello Doug,
Indeed, that is my intention. Thanks again for your research. The more I look around, the more I see that many serious photographers go without UV filters...very interesting. This particular lens does have a snazzy built-in hood, after all...I see A LOT of articles online that mention the small mark-up on cameras & lenses and the large mark-up on UV filters...the times I've tried to buy a lens w/o a UV filter I was reprimanded but good...

---

You do not need a UV filter on a digital camera as mention by Roger and if it makes you feel any better Canon has already built in a high quality filter for the lens if you look at the this diagram you will notice that the front element is a straight piece of non UD glass. Also I have been shooting my 300f/4 and 500 f/4 along with all my other lenses for close to ten years without filters and have never damage the front element.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...s_usm.html?p=2

agree with others. I never use protective filters and always keep the hood on for protection....even on my 17-40. With a crop-factor camera, you dont need to worry about vignetting due to hood.

Thanks and thanks again for the splendid information. You intelligent folks are obviously quite right, and now I must get over this silly over-protective fear of mine and use my camera and lens with confidence. I really appreciate the information and experience of all who have posted...