Is this the result of a cheap filter?

[AnzacPride]

I was taking a few shots with my new lens(Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM) and am very happy with the results so far, I was taking a few shots of Ollie and Banjo in the late afternoon the other day and noticed a light area in the bottom left hand corner.
I was shooting with the sun behind and to the right of Ollie so the lens flare was expected but am wondering if this effect at the bottom left of the images was caused by the cheap Inca UV filter I was using at the time? If this is the case can anyone recommend some reasonable filters to protect my lenses?

Cheers Dan

[mudman]

i would suggest it's lens flare. try similar light set up without the filter and see if result is similar to this.
cheers

[AnzacPride]

Cheers I'll give it a try, I had my lens hood on at the time but the sun was at a pretty low angle

[JM Tran]

lens flare is much more pronounced by the use of cheap filters in front of the lens - I would dare say the Tamron lens without the cheap filter in front of it would have handled the flare better!

[WhoDo]

Most here have little good to say about UV filters of any type and price. You may have been better served by a nice Circular Polarising Light (CPL) filter instead. That will still help to give you the richer colouring of a UV filter and also cut down on stray reflected light at the same time. I hope that helps.

[AnzacPride]

Sorry JM but Im not sure what you mean,
Are you saying that the Tamron handles flare better vs the Sigma? From all the research I did (which was a lot) the Sigma seemed to be the better lens of the two both from a flare perspective and in all round performance.

[AnzacPride]

Whodo I am using the filter mainly to protect the lens, What would you suggest from a purely protective prospective?

[Stingray]

Hi Dan
Had a similar issue (not with lens flare) but was trying to figure out why almost all of my shots werent as detailed as I was expecting, then had a "Doh" moment .. and removed the cheap UV filter i had purchased to give a little "protection" to my nice (new back then) 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM .. and now pics are much more detailed

[WhoDo]

Whodo I am using the filter mainly to protect the lens, What would you suggest from a purely protective prospective?

I'd suggest you read this thread on UV filters before using them. I had one UV filter for every lens and they all now sit useless in their cases at the bottom of my Lowpro backpack. A good solid lens cap and a reasonable amount of care and cleaning will do more for protecting your valuable lenses than a UV filter, as the referenced link will show.

[KevPride]

All they do is collect dust & create flare - as WhoDo suggests better to simply take care with cleaning & a sound lens cap.

[AnzacPride]

Thanks Whodo,
I have just read the thread you linked to and found it very informative.
I think I have been a bit paranoid about my lenses since putting a slight scratch on my kit 18-55 when I first got it whilst cleaning it.

[bushbikie]

^ +1 - I'd also suggest that you use a lens hood for a bit of extra protection as well.

[JM Tran]

Sorry JM but Im not sure what you mean,
Are you saying that the Tamron handles flare better vs the Sigma? From all the research I did (which was a lot) the Sigma seemed to be the better lens of the two both from a flare perspective and in all round performance.

Sorry I should have wrote Sigma, not Tamron.

Im saying that the lens alone would have handled less flare without the UV filter on, than with it on as seen in the photo.

[AnzacPride]

No worries JM,
I went out this afternoon and left the filters off with much better results. Thanks for the advice folks

Cheers Dan