UV-Haze Filter on 17-40

[Thierry]

After following all the threads on this forum, I opened the wallet for a 17-40L for my 10D and got it today! Now I planned on mounting the Canon UV-Haze filter on it as a protection, so I want to keep it on all the time.
What quality loss am I going to see (sharpness, colors,...) ?

Thierry

[maderito]

After following all the threads on this forum, I opened the wallet for a 17-40L for my 10D and got it today! Now I planned on mounting the Canon UV-Haze filter on it as a protection, so I want to keep it on all the time.
What quality loss am I going to see (sharpness, colors,...) ?

Thierry
If you see a quality difference after screwing on that Canon UV filter, please let me know. I'd have to reconsider my membership in this Canon forum :!:

[GPR1]

Be careful of a "Haze" filter. A pure UV filter is clear, but a haze filter has a very slight pink cast that you can see if you place it on a white piece of paper. That pink cast reduces the appearance of haze, but also subtly changes the colors. I prefer the pure UV filter.

Greg

[KennyG]

After following all the threads on this forum, I opened the wallet for a 17-40L for my 10D and got it today! Now I planned on mounting the Canon UV-Haze filter on it as a protection, so I want to keep it on all the time.
What quality loss am I going to see (sharpness, colors,...) ?

Thierry

I am not a fan of filters unless you attach them to take a specific shot. A hood provides better protection, with the additional benefit of reducing flare. You have to watch filters on WA lenses in particular for reflections where the light bounces between the filter and the front element. With some WA lenses the gap is so small between the front element and filter you can get what are known as Newton Rings. Personally, I wouldn't use one with the 17-40. Go commando, you know it makes sense.

I have seen AF affected in some circumstances when using a UV filter, but it isn't a consistant problem and difficult to pin down. Where it was a problem, removing the filter cured it.

[Jesper]

I have a B+W UV filter for my 17-40. A few days ago I wanted to see if the filter changed anything, so I made a couple of test shots with and without filter. I can see absolutely no difference between these. A good quality filter doesn't compromise image quality.

[scottbergerphoto]

I always have a UV filter on my 16-35/2.8 unless I replace it with a CPL. I always find fingerprints and other crap on my filter. I just clean that off. I don't want to have to do that to a front lens element. Absoloutely no loss in quality.
Scott

[slin100]

I have a Hoya Super HMC UV(0) filter on my 17-40. For me, the filter provides the added protection from my kids' prying fingers, protection that no hood can provide. I also use a hood, too, to keep flare down.

I haven't done a side-by-side comparison but the filter seems to have improved the contrast of my shots, especially those with sky.

[Cadwell]

I use a UV filter on my 17-40L. I've had no problems with it.

[GPR1]

Canon states in their literature that the 17-40 is not considered sealed unless there is a filter on front. I also use a Hoya, and because of the crop factor I don't get any corner vignettes. I have a super slim filter when I use the lens with my film camera. I do remove the UV filter when I want a different filter, such as a polarizer.

Greg

[joeseph]

Bought a UV filter for my 16-35 the day after it arrived. Will probably never remove it...

[WestFalcon]

I have been in photography for over 30 years and have read magazines for all of these years. Pop or Modern photography did a test on this and found no degradation of the image from filters, so I always put one on everyone of my lenses upon purchase. I don't like touching my actual lens glass and certainly don't want to clean it all the time and get the dreaded cleaning marks. Can you imagine accidentally scratching the front of a $1500 L lens.......what a nightmare!!!!

[dennykyser]

I may be over cautious but when I bought my 17-40 from my local dealer he did not have a B&W or a Hoya filter so I purchased a cheap one to keep in it till I order a good one. I guess I want to make sure that glass is always protected. Now if I am inside, with a tripod I may take if off, If I feel I am loosing some quality, but seems to me (above posts) that it wont happen.

[samdring]

Slightly off main topic but do any of you use skylight permanently

[defordphoto]

I have Canon UV's on all my lenses. The UV goes on as the lens comes out of the box and it stays there.

[drisley]

I have Canon UV's on all my lenses. The UV goes on as the lens comes out of the box and it stays there.

I've looked everywhere in Canada for Canon UV filters. Can't find them anywhere.
How do they compare price/quality wise to a hoya hmc?

[WestFalcon]

I have Canon, Hoya and tiffens ...UV or Skylight...I don't care,both seem to have little effect.

[defordphoto]

I have Canon UV's on all my lenses. The UV goes on as the lens comes out of the box and it stays there.

I've looked everywhere in Canada for Canon UV filters. Can't find them anywhere.
How do they compare price/quality wise to a hoya hmc?

They're all over the B&H website. Price is reasonable. I have no idea what the Hoya price is so I can't compare.

[dtsang831]

If you have good lenses, you should get the better version of UV. Just take a look at the description this site provided.

http://cameragear.com/coatings.asp

[defordphoto]

If you have good lenses, you should get the better version of UV. Just take a look at the description this site provided.

http://cameragear.com/coatings.asp

After seeing that I'm sure the HMC would be fine. Some of these filter prices are world's more ridiculous than L prices. I have had nothing but stellar results using the Canon UVs.