AmazonBasics 52mm UV Protection Lens Filter

As an UV filter it is good. But there's one thing you need to know. Doesn't matter if its worth Rs.150 or Rs.1500, all UV filters will decrease the picture quality & sharpness by 0.7% to 1.0% so just deal with it in post processing. This thing is super durable & can take pretty hard bumps to protect the lens from getting scratched. The best thing is that you can still put your hood & lens cap on the lens even if it is attached. There are some better uses of this. You can add that artistic sun glare to the lens with this filter. I'm using it as more of a creative thing instead of a protection thing on my lens. For sure this filter is true value for money.Know the sizes!1. 52 mm for Nikkor 50 Prime lens (Nifty-Fifty).2. 55 mm for Nikkor 18-55 Kit lens.3. 58 mm for Nikkor 70-300 Telephoto lens.*To check what size goes on your lens, just see the number marked in mm behind your pinch-open lens cap.

By now I have both the attachments for 52mm and 62mm. The quality of the glass of the uv filter from amazonbasics is really good. UV filters are probably the best addition to your lenses if you are really careful and cautious while handling them. Well speaking of which it might not create a hell and heaven difference, but it surely adds a lot of protection to your lenses.

Local Chinese Filter, you will get this quality in chandani chowck for Rs 100

Obviously, for the price you can expect no coating: and there is no coating, reflective surface, so be prepared for internal reflections. Usually amazon basics have some quality, but unfortunately this is not going to help you Not sure of durability but looks good by construction, so 4 stars.Packing itself can cost more than the filter itself, looks like :)I do not recommend this.

As other said either you use a ₹1500 filter or a ₹250 amazon basic filter their always will be a degradation in the picture quality. So we mainly specialy me use this filter to protect my lens from any damage by not lowering the image quality much. So if your cause to buy a filter is same as mine then you can go for it without thinking anythingI am giving a image with filter you can spot a disturbance in the picture near the bulb.

Lens glass is thick and scratch resistant. Frame quality is good. Fitting is good. But it gets fungus and develops whitish layer easily. Out of box it has whitish layer of fungus. It can infect your lens also. Transparency is poor. It's highly reflective. Degrades picture quality. Reduces sharpness and decreases colour contrast. Very poor filter. Osaka 12 layer multicoated filter has much better transparency than this. But Osaka coating gets scratched even with microfiber. So nothing is perfect. But I would not recommend to buy Amazon basics UV filter due to poor transparency and degradation in picture quality.

I was looking for an inexpensive solution for outdoor photography (mostly sun, moon & bird) with my MICRO FOUR-THIRD. The price fitted the requirement and I was pleasantly surprised with the the item (bought both Lens Hood & UVP Lens Filter) both 72 mm (very important to notice the size).As you can see the pics, it absolutely fits my requirement. I have a very complex and multiple combination of few unusual photography tools (Olympus OMD EM1 micro 4/3, Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens, Commlite CM-AEF-MFT Booster Canon EF, Lens Hood & UVP Lens Filter) to make a comparatively inexpensive but customised set.I can say it is one of the best available solutions for a 72mm lens.

I bought this based upon user reviews. Upon using it for 2 weeks I have to admit that I am totally satisfied with the quality of this product. It's certainly a value for money product and makes no difference to the picture quality whatsoever.

Prodotto economico... Son rimasto fregato da queat'articolo perché l'ho utilizzato per proteggere le lenti dal freddo durante un viaggio in Lapponia... Tutte le foto che avesssero un tempo di esposizione superiore al secondo presentavano una distorsione luminosa.. Si presentavano dei cerchi concentrici al centro dell'immagine che non si riescono ad attenuare o togliere se non distruggendo la foto.. Meno male che me ne sono accorto dopo la prima sera..altrimenti potevo buttare tutto... Cerco di allegare un pezzo di foto in cui si vede quel che resta dopo averci messo mani con photoshop per attenuare il disastro

Amazon are sometimes quite daft when they want reviews of products. I can understand someone wanting advice and reassurance on a complex cameras, drones etc. Or someone wanting info on visiting the 99 Wonders of the World. But this is a screw on filter bought to protect the lens! I screwed it on, it fits, it does its job. 5 stars for being easy and cheap (just like me on a Saturday night).

Jeder Filter ist eine zusätzliche Glasschicht, die bei der Entwicklung des Objektivs nicht berücksichtigt wurde und beeinflusst dadurch die Bildqualität. Die Frage ist entsprechend, wie groß ist der Nutzen und ist dies den Verlust der Bildqualität wert?In der digitalen Spiegelreflex-Fotografie speilt ein UV-Filter keine Rolle mehr, da die Bildsensoren nicht auf UV-Licht reagieren (alte Filme waren hier im Gegenzug anfällig und die Bildqualität hat durch hohe UV-Einstrahlungen gelitten). Insofern haben UV-Filter heute keinen positiven Effekt mehr auf die Bildqualität. Der Filter übernimmt aber – für kleines Geld – die vielleicht wichtigste Aufgabe überhaupt: Er schützt die Linse wirkungsvoll vor Kratzern und spart damit teure Reparaturen oder Neuanschaffungen.Bleibt also die Frage, mit welchem Preis man sich dies erkauft: Auswirkungen auf die Auflösung konnte ich keine feststellen. DDie Auflösung ist noch immer auf dem Niveau, das ich vorher schätzen gelernt habe. Reflexionen sind – wenn man es nicht bewusst darauf anlegt – nicht sonderlich wahrnehmbar. Aus diesem Grund lässt sich ganz klar sagen, dass der Nutzen, den der Filter für rund 10€ bietet, durch den Schutz meiner Objektive im Wert von mehrere hundert Euro, so groß ist, dass diese kaum wahrnehmbaren „Fehler“ absolut zu vernachlässigen sind. Und wenn ich meine Kamera auf ein Stativ montiert habe und es mir auf das letzte kleine Krümelchen ankommt, dann kann ich ja auch einfach den Filter entfernen. Denn besser wird das Bild durch diesen Filter eben auch nicht, egal wie sehr ich mich dafür auf den Kopf stelle ;-)Weil es immer wieder lustig ist:Moderne Objektive (das trifft bereits auf relativ preiswerte Objektive für wenige hundert Euro zu) sind mittlerweile so gut, dass sie von natürlichem (und künstlichem Licht) nahezu keine „Bildfehler“ mehr produzieren. Dadurch ist auch ein Stück der Reiz verloren gegangen, den man früher bei der Fotografie von Sonnenschein (und Sonnenuntergängen) erzielen konnte. Aus diesem Grund fügen verschiedene Profi-Fotografen mittlerweile am Computer „Fehler“ in die Bilder ein, die diesen mehr Charakter verleihen. Da stellt sich doch die Frage: lohnt sich die Diskussion, ob es bei dem Filter zu minimalen Reflexionen kommt, überhaupt oder sollte man vielleicht sogar gezielt noch schlechtere Filter kaufen? ;-)

Mixed thoughts about this UV filter: its cheap and offers protection, but it can interfere with your shots in some conditions.PROS: it was super cheap and arrived quickly. Amazon Basics means just that - its essentially just a piece of round protective glass in a plain box with a hyperlink for instructions.CONS: as others have noted, it shows very noticeable reflections if there is a bright light source in the frame. I noticed reflection artifacts while shooting in sunny daylight from things like window reflections or bright objects. The effect varies based on the shape and brightness of the light source, but its noticeable. The sample photo of an LED light is an extreme comparison of the reflection effect so you get the idea. (I used the Amazon Basics 52mm UV filter on a Canon EF-S 24mm pancake lens.)THOUGHTS: Definitely not a high-end product - whether or not this is a deal breaker is up to you. An UV filter with better anti-reflective coatings will likely cost much more. I'll keep it since I'm just a casual photographer, it offers some protection to my lens, and I can remove it if needed. Its cheap and you get what you paid for - there's a reason pro-grade filters cost alot more.

There is so much nonsense written about UV protection. What has changed since the days of film and flarey UV shots is that most Digital cameras have sensors with a degree of built in UV filtration, combine that with modern lenses that have multiple coatings on each element reducing both UV and other image degrading effects from stray light and the UV problem is minimal, (unless you happen to live high in the Andes) . What has n't changed is the fact that you are going to whack your lens on a table one day... or drop it...or take a shot and get covered in sea spray and a UV filter is going to save your lens. That simple fact, along with preventing dust and smudges directly on a lens which will cause image problems, make a UV filter the cheapest and most sensible addition to every lens.