70-200 2.8 with lens hood without protective filter - safe?

[Adam Hicks]

Are others doing this? I've been putting the B+W MRC UV/Haze filters on my lenses, which seem to be some of the best, but certainly get $$$! I'm close to ordering the 70-200 2.8 and lens hood, and the hood looks deep enough to pretty well protect the glass. I don't do a lot of bangin' around anyways (with my camera equipment or otherwise!) so I'm wondering if there are others here who are comfortable running without UV, etc filters and letting the hood protect the lens?

I'm ordering this week more than likely and just need to know whether I should drop the additional money on the filter or save it towards the 580ex!

Adam

[ssim]

I have a UV filter on every lens irregardless of the hood. In my opinion, the UV filter offers a margin of safety no matter how careful one is. In the grander scheme of things, I find it a small price to pay for some piece of mind and comfort level in the event that something should happen.

[GenEOS]

I have been shooting my 100-400 and 70-200 without any filter, other than an occasional polariser for years now. I have not had any problems. If you are going to shoot in an inviroment that is dusty or dirty, or the lens surface is likely to get pelted with something, than a filter may help you keep crud off the front element.

I have shot NHRA drag racing with it where rubber and crud is in the air and have had no problems. The hood shields a lot from the glass.

Some people have always bought a UV or skylight filter for any lens they use. But, I see no reason for it. Put the money in another piece of equipment. My opinion. I am sure you will get other opinions. I see it as another piece of glass light has to get through to make the image and you are introducing a non-Canon non-L piece of glass to the mix. Why?

OK let the bashing begin...how screwed up am I?

[Adam Hicks]

GenEOS that was my thinking... a $1000+ piece of glass that you're screwing a $20-30-50 piece of glass onto, being the first glass your image passes through before it hits any of that expensive L glass. Even though I use top of the line filters, but like you say, it's still another piece of glass, and another opportunity for ghosting wide open.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have been torn between the two sides of this question fro some time.

1> Cheap protection for multithousand dollars worth of glass

Vs.

2> Hobbling your multithousand dollars worth of image quality with a cheap peice of glass screwed to the end.

Which point of view makes most sense?

Here's what I found.

I bought all Canon UV filters for my 77MM lenses.
I allway use a hood, and at times I will remove the filter.

The upshot:

1> Though I have no real way of knowing what effect the filters have had, I do not perceive any loss of quality.

2> Of the four 77mm UV filters I have mounted (17-40mm, 28-70mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm) Three of the four have various scratches on them from tiny to rather large in size.
(I ALLWAYS shoot with a hood.)

*********************
The decision?

I am keeping the FILTERS ON.

I fact I think I am going to invest in another half dozen or so ,.. so I will allways have some new ones on hand.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Recomendation:

My experiences probably have more to do with how I shoot and where I shoot than anything.

Although I take immaculate care of my gear when I ma NOT under pressure of actually shooting.. at "showtime" the kid gloves come off and I'll do what it takes to get the shot.

My suggestion is this;

Untill you are confident in how you use your camera ,.. you may want to invest in some clear filters. Use them all the time.. maybe taking them off only if you feel it is neccesary.

After a few months of normal use and cleanings.. inspect the filters for scratches etc.

If you are the type of user that can go 6 months without a scratch on a filter... then maybe you don't need them.

If your like me however.. you will be somewhat horrified at the number of scratches on your filters.. while at the same time thrilled that it is a $40.00 filter you are going to toss out.. and not an $1,700.00 L lens. :)

[DocFrankenstein]

So far I have only one lens worth protecting. It's the 70-200 sigma. I do have a nice double sided multi fully coated hoya filter, but I use it seldom.

When I was taking pics of my bro swimming, it's on. Who wants to get chlorinated water on the front element, raise your hand! :shock:

But I get autofocusing problems in certain kinds of ambient light (I think). So when at the zoo with straight paths I take it off. But then I came too close to a bush and was horrified when I saw a small branch scratch the hood and come into the lens. :shock: Fortunately it didn't touch the front element.

My 18-55 I really don't care about. :twisted: I'm not gonna buy a filter on it which costs almost as much as the lens itself. :roll:

I think a lens is a lens, no matter how L it is. It's meant to be used and abused, and sooner or later it will get scratched and die. So take it and take pics with it. It's only a grand, but the memories are priceless.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's only a grand, but the memories are priceless.


But why throw away a grand if a $40.00 filter will prevent the damage AND will not effect the images?

[Olegis]

I saw a photographer once in a local photo store, who had brought in his 70-200 f/2.8L. The lens had UV filter on. The filter had HUGE crack in the middle, but the lens remained untouched (the guy told me that he was shooting with the hood on).
Since then my 70-200 is always protected by the UV filter.

[tofuboy]

I have a UV filter on all (2) of my lenses, and will buy a UV filter for any new lens I buy. My friend (who is a fairly careful person) was out hiking with his camera, took a few shots then put the camera in his bag. As he was picking his bag up, he realized he hadn't latched the bag top down, so the camera and lens went for a tumble and hit the ground... the lens taking the damage. The damage being his UV filter cracked, but everything else was in fine working order. Had he not had that UV filter on there, that would have been $400 down the drain to replace the lens... rather than $40 for a new filter.

While that is an accident that is fairly unlikely to happen... accidents to happen.

[Sketcher]

I have Canon UV's on all my lenses. If there's a degradation in quality; I can't tell. And if I can't tell, there's no logical reason for me not to protect my lens investment with the relatively inexpensive cost of a filter.

I understand the "Putting cheap glass on the end of an expensive lens" argument. It's just that I don't note a visual difference. I'm definitely glad the scratches and dust that have gotten on my filters are on the filters rather than the lenses (and I use hoods).

[GenEOS]

What filter do you guys recommend for my 300, 400 & 600 primes?
just kidding here guys.. if you know me, you know I don't have any of these. But have rented them.

But, seriously, I have not seen to many fellow sportshooters with UV's across the front element of the big glass... And that is an investment to protect.

[Jon]

Two things
1) Insurance
2) Company lenses
Er . . . Three things . . .
3) Tax writeoffs

[Pekka]

It's only a grand, but the memories are priceless.


But why throw away a grand if a $40.00 filter will prevent the damage AND will not effect the images?

You don't have to buy a new lens. Front elements can be replaced.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Element replacing is an option ... good point. Any Idea of the cost?


I do have a 500mm prime that of course has no facility for a protective lens filter...

...and yes it makes me nervous as all get out! :shock: :?

Still, I suppose the question remains "how do you use your equipment?"

For me it is not worth the extra hassle of trying to be "that" carefull when the shooting is good. I'd rather not have to worry.. and the filter makes it so I don't.

[mjordan]

I shoot both outdoor and indoor dog shows, agility, herding, ring sport. I shoot wind surfers and kiteboarders on the river as well as dragon boat races. I don't use a filter. Yes, I get dust on the front lens, but I just blow it off or if need be use a very soft camel hair lens brush. On occasion I'll use a lens clearn and lens tissue to clean the lens. I've never had a problem with scratches. On the other hand, I've tried to clean filters and they aren't as tough as the coating on a front lens.

I do use common sense when I shoot like this. I don't point the lens up if it's raining and I try not to get so close that any organic matter that the sheep might kick up will hit my lens. Hitting me is a different story. :lol: If I'm not going to be shooting, the lens cap goes on. And I always have the lens shade on.

It's all a matter of how you use your equipment. I think those that broke a filter rather than the lens were more lucky than being prepared in having a filter on. It doesn't take much to crack a filter. It's just a thin piece of glass that is floating with room to flex and crack if hit. There have been other people that have dropped their lenses and it would have taken an airbag to save their lenses. The filter would not have done it.

The only time I wish I had a filter on is when I'm doing close ups of dogs. I don't know why they all seem to think they have to stick their nose into my lens hood. But they always put a smear on my lens that a wedding photographer back in the 70s would have been proud to have. :lol:

Mike

[Aylwin]

I have filters on my lenses too. Better safe than sorry, right?

By the way, everyone has so far mentioned UV filters. I used to use a UV filter but then I noticed that the photos were producing a slightly yellow cast. I then switched to Skylight 1B which also offers UV protection. Now, my photos are slightly warmer but I think that's a good thing.

Does anyone else use a Skylight or some other filter than plain UV as a main filter that stays on the lens?

[ohenry]

Years ago, UV filters had a very definate place -- to minimize the effects of UV rays and the slight bluish cast on distant landscape images. Modern lenses, and particularly digital cameras, have UV protection already there. That eliminates the necessity for UV protection.

On the issue of front element protection, true a filter will keep smudges, fingerprints, light scratches, and dust off your front element, but let's get realistic here. What are you doing that is going to poke into your front element hard enough to break it? And if it's hard enough to break the filter, isn't it likely to also break the front element? And dropping a lens? You really think that thin piece of glass is going to protect your lens? What are the odds of only the filter breaking?

Now let's consider that you still think the protection from fingerprints is a worthwhile investment (although I really think a $6 photo cloth is a better investment), unless you invest in quality glass filters, you're likely to experience some degradation of image quality or lens flare. So, you go out and buy a B&W filter for your 77mm lens at the tune of $100 and you need one for each of your 4 lenses...hmmm $400 invested in filters that protect your lens from fingerprints.

I've been shooting SLR cameras and lenses for well over 20 years and have never broken a lens. I've also never had to replace a lens because of scratches on the front element. Maybe I'm just lucky...but to me, I'll use filters when I need them to actually do something for the image and save the $$$ spent on UV filters for other accessories. But...to each their own. You want a filter? I'm sure that the salesman will appreciate the sale and you'll have some piece of mind.

Oh, and btw...I've been in a camera shop and seen a dropped lens. The filter was broken...and so was the lens. Go figure. :roll:

[DocFrankenstein]

I pretty much agree with ohenry.

But why throw away a grand if a $40.00 filter will prevent the damage AND will not effect the images?
It affects autofocus - that's the main reason.

Unless I have something flying in my camera, I won't put it on.

[kufel]

My 10D with 70-200 IS landed on the grass and tumbled down the muddy hill. had a lens hood on it, no filter. Couple muddy droplets on the glass only, did not cause ANY damage, the L glass seems to be really hard :) I am sure it would be a different story if it was my 20-35 (lens hood much shorter) but i see scratches being produced on my Tiffen polarizers with a touch of the brush, no thanx.
That's my opinion

[abel]

i dont use any UV filters on my lenses. i only have a 70-200f2.8 17-40f4 and a 50 f1.4

id rather not cover up that end of the L if at all possible....

i do shoot with the hood 100% of the time so that helps keep it safe from some direct elements...

[FrenchAmateur]

Element replacing is an option ... good point. Any Idea of the cost?


I do have a 500mm prime that of course has no facility for a protective lens filter...

...and yes it makes me nervous as all get out! :shock: :?

Still, I suppose the question remains "how do you use your equipment?"

For me it is not worth the extra hassle of trying to be "that" carefull when the shooting is good. I'd rather not have to worry.. and the filter makes it so I don't.

But the front lens of the 500 mm is just a neutral protection, the equivalent of a neutral filter (at least on my 4,5...).

[Sketcher]

i think, perhaps how each of us uses our gear and the environment we shoot in has a lot to do with how we protect our gear. Though, just because you climb through rocks and brush doesn't expressly mean you ascribe to the camp of glass on glass. A friend of mine maintains a clean and orderly studio, rarely takes his gear out of the shop and still puts a skylight on every one of his lenses.

There is equittable discussion on both sides whether a filter is good/bad and there are examples on both sides where a filter has saved or ruined a shot or outting. So IMO there isn't one statement, example or experience that lends itself to a definitive answer across the board.

It tastes Great AND it's less filling. Just depends on what you're thirsty for.

[Cadwell]

OK, I'm in the "filter on" camp. I have filters on all of my lenses. One point I would like to add though. On Canon "weather sealed" zoom lenses don't you need a filter to complete the weather sealing? That is certainly the case with the 17-40L which the manual states needs a front filter fitted to be dust and moisture resistant.

[KartGirlsMom]

About a month after I got my f2.8 70-200 lens, I left the lens in the bag unzipped while I changed lenses. My daughters friend picked up the bag and dumped the lens onto a concrete floor. I looked in horror to see huge cracks on the surface of the lens. I was so relieved to see that it was just the UV filter and that the lens was just fine. Never, ever will I leave my bag unzipped again, and never ever will I have any lens without a filter.

[HJMinard]

About a month after I got my f2.8 70-200 lens, I left the lens in the bag unzipped while I changed lenses. My daughters friend picked up the bag and dumped the lens onto a concrete floor. I looked in horror to see huge cracks on the surface of the lens. I was so relieved to see that it was just the UV filter and that the lens was just fine. Never, ever will I leave my bag unzipped again, and never ever will I have any lens without a filter.

Just wondering ... did the filter break from a direct blow or just from the concussion of the fall? If the latter, then it's possibly a case of "cheap glass broke - good glass didn't". In most cases, I don't think a filter is going to protect a lens from a fall onto concrete. I can see scratches as a very legitimate concern - but for breakage concerns, I'd recommend personal ariticles insurance.

[BearSummer]

Is it that time already...

Sorry didnt realise it was time for the yes/no filter question again. I had to pay for my equipment, none if it is company owned. All of the lenses that I have that can take one have a plain canon protect filter on them. I am extra carefull of the wides as they dont take filters and the 200 always gets its hood put on. Everything else, wears a filter and a hood. I have scratches on a few of the filters, one of my new filters stopped my benbo mk2 handle from hitting the front of my 24-70. it was only about a week old, nice scratch through the coatings, didnt break, no damage to lens.

Best regards

BearSummer