70-200 f2.8 Filter

[playinhockey]

Which filter should I get to protect the front element? I have a B & W polarizer that I use on my 17-40. Is this filter to dark for indoors? Would a UV filter be better?

[Belmondo]

The effect of a UV filter is barely perceptible, so you'll probably not even notice it's on. It's cheap insurance for protecting your lens.

[playinhockey]

Which brand would you recommend? Prices range $25 up to $150.

[Belmondo]

To me, this is one area where it's possible to really waste money. Except for those on an absolutely unlimited budget, it's hard to justify the cost of very expensive filters. When you consider that the primary function (for most of us) of a UV filter is to protect the lens, and considering the effects on an image are minimal, it makes little sense to argue that one piece of perfectly clear glass is better than another piece of perfectly clear glass. Obviously, this is not the same with polarizers because they do affect the image.

I know there will be dissention on this, but that's just how I feel.

[playinhockey]

That's what I was thinking. I was just wondering if I was missing something.

Thank's, Tom

[PaulB]

Tom
Be aware that the 17-40/4L is NOT properly sealed against dust and moisture unless a filter is attached - the same applies to the 16-35/2.8L.
Some people have reported problems with the front element actually touching the filter if a very slim mount filter is used - so don't be seduced into buying a 'slim-line super-dupa quad-coated; only set you back 50% of the lens price sir' filter - a normal UV is quite sufficient, will not vignette even at 17mm on FF and is mainly there to protect the front element anyway

[playinhockey]

I usually leave the polarizer on my 17-40. I use it mostly outside or indoors with a flash. Would a UV filter be better for this lens also?

[DaveG]

Canon UV filters are good and (surprisingly) cheap. But I'd never go with the cheapest filter I could find. It makes no sense to spend that kind of money on an L series lens and then put crap in front of it.

A few years ago I bought a used Nikkor 300mm f4.5 lens. It was Nikon's base model with no internal focusing or ED glass. It had a cheap UV filter on it when I got it and I left it on since it seemed to be in good shape.

I was working for a newspaper at the time and all we shot was B&W, and specifically Tri-X film. I'd go to a soccer game and I'd split the shooting between this lens and my Nikkor 180 mm f2.8. When I processed the film I could see on the NEGATIVES the difference in contrast between the two lenses. And of course I just figured that that was why Nikon got the big bucks for the ED glass.

For whatever reason one day I took the filter off of the 300. I couldn't believe the results! All of a sudden I was getting the contrast of the 180! And the thing that pissed me off was that the filter STILL looked pristine. I broke down and bought a L37C (Nikon speak for a UV filter) and the results stayed great, and that is my cheap filter story!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yeah beware of the super duper cheap crappy filters.. ("Crystal" etc.. sorry Tom W. it was a freeeby for protection during shipping :roll: )

Canon brand are very well priced,. Hoya has a low cost line as well as the pricier multicoated, Nothing wrong with Tiffen either.

A lot of people suggest that B&W is the best....

I have had first hand experience with a filter effecting a lens in a big way. And it was a "good" filter,.. so I am a little more wary. In my case the UV filter (a Hoya) wreaked havoc on the lenses AF. It caused the lens to front focus by a few feet!

[IanD]

UV's are on all my lenses, even shoot with them on sometimes. However when I'm set up and waiting for, lets say DEER!, and if it is not to windy, nor is it raining, I will usually take the filter off. It goes in the bag right on top so that I do not forget to put it back on before I stow away the gear.
I figure that a deer is not going to come along, grab a stick or a rock, and proceed to whale the tar out of the front element.
But, if out walking around, driving in the truck, the UV's are always on.
Cheap insurance like everyone says.

[stevelew]

Do you think the filter slows down the AF? I just purchased a 70-200 IS and when I rented one about 2 weeks ago it did have a UV filter attached. I left it on and shot with it but now that I have my own I wasn't sure if I should put a filter on it. I always use a hood which protects the glass most of the time. I know it's cheap insurance for such a pristine lens.

Steve

[IanD]

Do you think the filter slows down the AF? I just purchased a 70-200 IS and when I rented one about 2 weeks ago it did have a UV filter attached. I left it on and shot with it but now that I have my own I wasn't sure if I should put a filter on it. I always use a hood which protects the glass most of the time. I know it's cheap insurance for such a pristine lens.

Steve
Steve,
Do not take the chance. Unless you can positivly, 100% guarnatee that nothing will come in contact with the front element, use a UV. The only way that you will be sure that nothing is affected is to try shooting with and without a filter.
And remember if you ever get a bad case of "Thos" the filter may save the day.

[drisley]

How are the Hoya HMC UV's?

[stevelew]

Thanks for the input. I just put a BW filter on there.