Just got 17-40L now...

[booggerg]

WOW great lens! I love how I can still perform MF in AF mode... My question is...
how durable is the coating on the outside lens element? What do you guys use to clean the lens? I want to be especially careful now with my $700 lens.

[Spargo]

You should at least be using a clear filter on the end of each of your lenses to avoid scratching. Scratch the filter, buy another for $10-$30, scratch the lens and buy another for $700.

[booggerg]

What is this gelatine filter i can insert at the body end? I've never seen these kinf of filters before? Will any Gelatine filter do? Thanks.

[Spargo]

Never heard of one of those, I'm new to all this stuff too. I just know you should pick up a clear or UV filter to protect your lens. Make sure it's the same diameter.

[Sketcher]

I'll put in my recommendation for the Filter. I predict there will be posts soon agruing the point ;). I have a Canon filter on my 17-40mm and it's all good.

Congrats on the new lens!

[Cadwell]

OK... there are arguments for and against filters... personally I use filters on my lenses... some people don't. I do know that if you read the manual for that 17-40L it will tell you that it's not properly dust and moisture sealed without a filter on the end.

I suggest getting yourself a decent multicoated UV filter.

[Chris1le]

I use Canon UV filters on all my lenses. I would not worry to much about the gelatin filter.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

My question is...
how durable is the coating on the outside lens element? What do you guys use to clean the lens? I want to be especially careful now with my $700 lens.

I first dust off the lens with a brush, to avoid scratching it, when I wipe it clean with a microfiber cloth..
As far as filters go (although you didn't ask about them originall), be careful to check whether the filter will rub against the front element of your lens...I had such an issue in this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35792&highlight=)

I hope this helps you.

[booggerg]

So any lens fluid cleaner will be fine for the L's coating?

[forrest64]

I love my 17-40. It's great for group, landscape and architecture picture taking. I was roaming around an old downtown today taking pics of 19th century buildings. They turned out great.


Mark

[aam1234]

I'm not a WA kindda guy but people keep on talking about that lens that I think I must have it, at least to give the lens a rest (in my mind).

[Hatem Eldoronki]

So any lens fluid cleaner will be fine for the L's coating?

Yes, I suppose..

[drisley]

I would assume a pecpad and eclipse would be ok?

Oh, here is what I use... a lens hood on all my lenses at all times.
No UV filters to reduce the chance of wierd flares and ghosting.
However, I often shoot dark theatres with bright stage lighting, so this solution suits me best. This is definately up to each individual's taste.

[roanjohn]

Yes indeed!!! That 17-40 f4 L is one heck of a lens. It's actually the lens that stays mostly in my camera.

.............no UV filter.............just da good 'ol hood for me!!

RO1

[Panza]

Only use the hood. The filters will only degrade the image. And will cause ghosting and other problems in the right (or wrong) situations..

[George]

If you read the owner's "manual" for the 17-40, it tells you that it requires a filter to be sealed. If you want full weather protection, you have to use a filter. As for filters impacting image quality... that depends on the quality of the filter. A good quality coated filter (like a B+W MRC) will not impact the image. I've actually had the filter sometime do a better job than the lense coating when it comes to ghosting.

[Danny Boy]

And as Cadwell mentioned, and if you decide to use a filter, get a multicoated filter. It is a few more $$ than non-multicoated filters but you ensure truer color reproduction. That is how it was explained to me anyways.

Dan

[booggerg]

I understand that a multicoated filter will prevent less flare. In situations where there can't be flare in the lens, a lesser quality filter will do.

[Danny Boy]

Also, be careful w/ cleaning fluids. I believe on some thread I read that some types of fluids can leave a residue which is unwanted, maybe the use of glass cleaners or something like that. I forget the specifics about this and maybe someone can either explain further or provide a link to the thread (or just say you are completely wrong and are talking out of your a$$). :lol:

Dan

[abel]

ill chime in as well...

i shoot with a 17-40 on my 10d and i like it... although i wish i had the 16-35 f2.8 simply for dark concert shots etc...

i dont use a filter, just the hood.

[Flyball Rebel]

Congrats. Booggerg on your new lens, I love mine and yes I do use an UV filter when a Circ PL is not needed. By the way guys who does and who doesn't use their Lens Hood for the 17-40? I find really no difference with or without in ALL lighting conditions...Any comments? [F.R.]

[Hatem Eldoronki]

They would make a difference if you'll be using a camera with a full frame sensor size..The crop factor on the 10D/DRebel/20D eliminates the need for the hood, because where the hood will throw it's shade on the lens, is not a part of the recorded picture on the 1.6 crop factor sensors.

[rodbunn]

I put a Heliopan UV ES77 on mine (and on my 24-70) and
I couldn't see any problems. It says "slim version" on the case.
I think it was around $100 at Samy's but I could be mistaken.

Good luck, Rod
ps. I always use my hood for protection from bumping into
things (which I seem to do a lot ;-)

[danphoto1]

I always use a filter on my lenses to protect them from scratching. It's a personal thing. I think I can live with a slight downgrade in image quality over a big scratch in a 1300 to 2400 dollar lens. :oops: :wink:

[2new]

I just thought I'd follow up to your original question about cleaning -

I use both a lens brush and microfibre cloth and a lens pen to clean the glass. The lens pen is great for hiking or other outdoor activities.

Michael
PS

If you do a search on Amazon you'll find several branded lens pens;

http://www.ewins.com/lenspen/?reference_code=1

:wink:

[danphoto1]

I have the lens pen it is great and Rocke air blower which I use for both the lens and CCD/ CMOS cleaning. I have several quality treated lens cloths as well. I am a little bit aprhensive about lens cleaning liquids unless it is absolutly neccssary. :oops: :shock: :o

[samdring]

I hate most lens hoods and find the one for the 17-40 particularly useless on a 10D
Has anyone used the collapsible types - I think Hoya do one which is supposed to be good.

[rodbunn]

They would make a difference if you'll be using a camera with a full frame sensor size..The crop factor on the 10D/DRebel/20D eliminates the need for the hood, because where the hood will throw it's shade on the lens, is not a part of the recorded picture on the 1.6 crop factor sensors.

I can't figure out how anyone would know EXACTLY where the sun would hit on a lense that would make it "out of the crop factor". I bet you could move the lense around so that the lense shade is protecting the "part of the lense out of the crop factor" if you really tried.

Just my opinion.....

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I can't figure out how anyone would know EXACTLY where the sun would hit on a lense that would make it "out of the crop factor". I bet you could move the lense around so that the lense shade is protecting the "part of the lense out of the crop factor" if you really tried.

Just my opinion.....

As far as I understand, the hood really only helps the area closest to edge of the lens, where say, if you're shooting the sky, the resulting picture would have the middle of the sky darker than the edge part without the hood.
As far as the middle of the lens element, the hood is too short to cover that area anyway. I took a low angle picture of a car, with the sun in front of and above of the lens with the hood on, and the flare just destroyed the shot.
So I guess it doesn't matter anyhow, unless you change the compsition of the shot, of course. (The hood itself does not move once in place).

[spearce6]

Just one thing to bear in mind is that you only need a thin filter if you are using the 17-40 on a film body. If you are using it with any of the digital 1.6x crop bodies you can use a normal thickness filter without getting any vignetting. I use a normal filter as I hate the press on rubbery lens cap you have to use with a thin filter - they constantly fall off.

Steve
http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com

[drisley]

I lens hood sure can't hurt the image, only help it.
And it offers GREAT protection. So, lens hoods are not "useless".

I saw a great review somewhere that compared flaring and ghosting.
First it shot with the bare lens, then a cheap uv, then a medium price uv, then an EXTREMELY expensive uv. NONE of the uv filters, even the most expensive, best uv you could buy, had the image quality as the bare lens.
By that I mean ALL of the uv filters INCREASED ghosting and flare. However, the expensive filter did do a much better job than the other uv's, just not as good as a bare lens. Personally I would like to get the best out of the lens, and if I have to chose between the included lens hood, or a possibly $100+ uv filter, I choose the lens hood.

[Adam Hicks]

Hey MCouper... nice to see another enthusiast!

Here's mine...
http://www.golilm.com/images/Coupe/Adambytheroad.JPG

[mdude85]

instead of buying a relatively expensive lens pen, you could definitely consider using make-up brushes that are commonly used for blush (sp?) or lipstick to clean your lenses. They are small and soft and don't cost an arm and a leg because they don't say "Nikon" or "Canon" on them.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Hey MCouper... nice to see another enthusiast!


Adam,
I know you from bimmer.org :D
My handle there is Hatem ///Z5

I also remember the picture you posted here from the time you first took it and posted it there, with the 'End Of The World, But M Coupe escapes!!!'