Filter for 70-200 f/4L IS

[patsfan]

I just became the proud owner of this wonderful new lens. My question is, I have always used UV Filters on my other lenses, so when I made this recent purchase, I picked up a UV filter for the 70-200. The store where I bought the lens carried a line called Promaster and I picked up a Promaster Digital UV Filter - # Code # 2828 67MM.

Is this a good quality UV filter? The price was $65, but I paid less because I had just dropped $1000 on the new 70-200.

Am I wasting my money and time with this filter on this lens? I prefer to use UV filter to help protect the glass, but I don't want to sacrifice performance. Should I return this filter and get something better? If so, what do you suggest?

[Jon]

Promaster's not known to be a terribly good brand. I use B+W MRC UV filters on my lenses, but Heliopan SH-PMC or Hoya S-HMC (or better) are also very good quality.

[sh0ebox]

i would suggest returning that filter. if you're going to use a UV filter, only stick to the highest quality (B+W MRC, Heliopan, Hoya Pro1 or SHMC).

a good place to buy cheap filters is www.hvstar.net --- shipping is expensive, but even so, after all fees it will still be cheaper than anywhere else. and you'll also have to wait a week or 2 for shipping as it comes from hong kong.

also, congrats on the lens! i plan on getting that same one someday when i get the money :)

[patsfan]

Jon and Shoebox - thank you. I think I will plan to do that.

Another quick question w/re: to this lens. Is there any drawback to not using the hood? Are there times that the hood is 100% a must and other times, when it doesn't matter?

[Jon]

Drawbacks to not using the hood? Fingers, non-imaging light and other unpleasantries can more easily hit the front of your lens (and/or filter) causing smudges, flare, or scratches. I use a hood all the time except when I'm using a polarizer and the hood would prevent my rotating the filter (not all hoods for all lenses will), or if I'm using an ND grad.

[patsfan]

i would suggest returning that filter. if you're going to use a UV filter, only stick to the highest quality (B+W MRC, Heliopan, Hoya Pro1 or SHMC).

a good place to buy cheap filters is www.hvstar.net (http://www.hvstar.net) --- shipping is expensive, but even so, after all fees it will still be cheaper than anywhere else. and you'll also have to wait a week or 2 for shipping as it comes from hong kong.

also, congrats on the lens! i plan on getting that same one someday when i get the money :)


Sh0ebox - have you had good luck ordering from that site? The prices seem like a steal compared to B&H. The shipping looked to be about $10. When factored in, it's still a great deal -- the Hoya Pro 1 is less than $40 shipped. Which would be about $25 less than B&H, not including the shipping

[sh0ebox]

i personally have never ordered from there but many people on this forum have and have had no trouble ordering from them, and they state that the items appear to be legit

if you need further proof search for hvstar and you should find that quite a few people here have used them before. hope this helps :)

i plan on ordering some filters from them in the near future

oh yeah: i would spring for the B+W MRC filters if you can (http://hvstar.net/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=46) --- from what i've read around here the hoyas are ridiculously hard to clean

[JohnJ80]

Use the hood and forget the UV filter. The hood is much, much better protection and it will help your images. The UV filter is not great protection and will only degrade your image quality.


J.

[sh0ebox]

Use the hood and forget the UV filter. The hood is much, much better protection and it will help your images. The UV filter is not great protection and will only degrade your image quality.


J.

true --- when i put my B+W UV filter on my 17-55, i did notice a slight decrease in IQ, but i had to look closely to really see it. i would agree that you should use the hood as much as possible as it will provide adequate protection in 99% of the situations you use it in.

a UV filter would be helpful for those conditions where a hood isn't enough though... like if you're shooting somewhere like the beach or a dusty/sandy/windy area (sea spray, blowing sand, etc.)

[cashen]

I just ordered 2 Hoya PRO1 filters. It took about 9 days for me to get them, but i saved a ton of money... Nice filters too!

Sh0ebox - have you had good luck ordering from that site? The prices seem like a steal compared to B&H. The shipping looked to be about $10. When factored in, it's still a great deal -- the Hoya Pro 1 is less than $40 shipped. Which would be about $25 less than B&H, not including the shipping

[JohnJ80]

true --- when i put my B+W UV filter on my 17-55, i did notice a slight decrease in IQ, but i had to look closely to really see it. i would agree that you should use the hood as much as possible as it will provide adequate protection in 99% of the situations you use it in.

a UV filter would be helpful for those conditions where a hood isn't enough though... like if you're shooting somewhere like the beach or a dusty/sandy/windy area (sea spray, blowing sand, etc.)

Agree.

I was a little terse in my advice above. I'd just written this on another thread:

http://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/s...otography.aspx

The other problem is that there is a big difference in the UV protection the various filters provide. This would suggest that most filter mfg's know that UV protection is not important in digital and that most of the filters sold are for protection.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...l_filters.html

Besides all this, there have been numerous reports of filters messing up the AF, of defects in the filter (lines and banding). These are primarily manufacturing and quality issues from the filter guys. Then there is the whole issue of flare and loss of contrast from strong side or front lighting.

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1

This then means that if one is worried about image quality, proper AF operation and UV filtering, then one is constrained to purchase high quality UV filters. Also, it means that these filters need to be MRC coated to protect against flare and loss of contrast. All of that means expensive filters like top end B+W and Hoya MRC UV filters. For example, IIRC, one of these costs about $80 (77mm filter thread) for a piece of glass that will protect the front piece of your lens (which is not too expensive to replace - does someone have a number?).

For my 5 most common lenses, I would then need to purchase 5 of these filters for a cost of about $400 - a significant portion of the cost of the lens - if I wanted to protect each lens from ever being touched. All of these lenses came with included hoods which undoubtedly provide better protection for the outer lens of the camera.

In 30 years of photography, in tough conditions, I have never had lens element damaged from dropping it. I HAVE had filters broken when I dropped them and I have had to get service help (an expense) to help get the damaged filters removed. I've bought a lot of lenses in that time frame and if they all had a UV filter on them, it would have been worth probably the cost of several lenses. That is all presuming that UV filters actually protect a lens when dropped.

UV filters do provide the final step in weather sealing for many lenses. If you use them in that sort of application, then they are necessary. They are also necessary if there is high velocity sand blowing around or other particulate matter that could damage the lens. These, of course, are a tiny fraction of the actual usage of almost all lenses.

Based on this, I don't see the economics of using a UV lens and certainly see the IQ benefits of not using one.

followed by this:


I've broken a few filters too. Most of then are when the lens drops on the floor and the filter ring takes the brunt of the fall. This causes the thin ring to deform and fracture the glass and usually sends shards of glass all over the front piece of the lens. These shards are a danger to the lens. When I look at this, I also believe that the lens would not have been damaged and the significantly more substantial lens housing would not have broken or deformed. It is much larger and able to take much more.

The other thing that happens is that the lens cap gets pushed into the filter and off the filter threads; the lens cap actually breaks the filter glass. In this case, it would not have hurt the outer lens because the lens is recessed in the lens body, the glass of the lens is much thicker than a filter, and the lens coatings and lens material is much, much harder than the plastic lens cap.

So when I think about these two most common failure mechanisms, I'm really just looking at failure mechanisms of the filters and their vulnerabilities rather than any protection the would provide for the lens or potential failure mode in the lens from the fall. In point of fact, a danger to the lens would very much be if one of the filter glass pieces were driven with any force into the coating of the lens. That could damage the lens easily.

At $80 a filter, easily broken in this manner, if one takes the cost of the filters purchased plus the cost of the broken one and presumes it must be replaced, it is even less attractive economically.

Which is what I really wanted to say without retyping it all.

Use UV filters in conditions where stuff is blowing around (water, sand, dirt, ice, etc...) or where necessary to complete the weathersealing of the lens. Otherwise, continue to us the hood.

UV filters for every lens are a waste of money and a major profit center for camera outlets.

J.

[minhi]

Sh0ebox - have you had good luck ordering from that site? The prices seem like a steal compared to B&H. The shipping looked to be about $10. When factored in, it's still a great deal -- the Hoya Pro 1 is less than $40 shipped. Which would be about $25 less than B&H, not including the shipping

i've used them with great success, shipping is about $10 per item to the US, so factor that into it, but as you point out you still save a decent amount over US dealers.