"L" Glass and Filters Questions.

[cricket]

As some of you may know from my intro, I was not well informed in my initial purchasing plan for my Canon comeback! To say the least!

I am now wondering about the Canon "L" series lenses and which filters will be the best on them.

:?: I like to keep a filter on my lens to protect it. Is this still common practice, or is this "old school?" Geez, I really hated to ask, but what the hay!

If it is common practice still, and I put a filter on my "L" lens, which brand or type will not diminish the sharpness that I'm paying dearly for?

This has been on my mind the last few days, and I welcome your thoughts!

Thanks!

[HJMinard]

I don't use them, but if I did I'd be using the B+W or Hoya multi-coated UV filters.

[mdude85]

It seems like the L lenses are the most important lenses to make sure have UV/clear filters on them, because those are the most expensive ones. Going with a standard Kenko or Hoya clear or UV filter ought to be fine -- I have UV/HAZE filters on all my lenses, but clear filters are also a good idea. The sharpness of your lens is not going to be compromised, but you have to make sure to keep the UV filter clean (as you would with the front element of your lens).

[cricket]

I don't use them, but if I did I'd be using the B+W or Hoya multi-coated UV filters.
So Jay, Is this because of using a digital camera, or do you have some other reason for this choice?

Thanks!

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

I'm using UV on my L and D lens, even on my 28-135.

I've stuck to Hoya for the UV, preferably slim to avoid vignetting when I use the CP or other filters as well.

This has worked for me so far, and I'm more concerned with damaging the front glass then compensating for the UV filter. I've shot some seashore sunsets and waves where I've had to duck quickly.

Glad to see you back after your intro post.

[theflyingkiwi]

I have UV filters on all of my lens bar 1 and that is the 50 1.8. Just the idea that it keeps the front glass safe from damage seems to be a good idea.

I have found that some people say yes, and some people say no when it comes to this topic. I am in the favor of yes, and also a lens hood. for the same reason. potects the lens.

[HJMinard]

So Jay, Is this because of using a digital camera, or do you have some other reason for this choice?

No, just a personal choice. This tends to be a controversial subject, but I just haven't determined it necessary to add what I consider to be extraneous elements/reflective surfaces to my lenses. I use hoods for lens protection and I've never had a problem. I have and occasionally use UV filters in harsh (blowing sand, salt water) conditions.

[kawter2]

I am beginning to doubt cricket. Are you for real?

Please Please pardon me if you are, but a lot of things are fishy about your setup and "knowledge"


I could see someone posing as an attractive female who is like a man shopping at a lingere store. Oh that would be cruel!!!

[cricket]

Ok, I had a salesman trying to sell me "Crystal Optics" filters because they are special for digital, and coated on both sides (when I asked him coated with what, he didn't have an answer. Gotta mess with them a little!).

I haven't used that brand, and I do own some Hoya, so maybe that's the best?

Thanks!

[Tom W]

If you choose to use a filter for protection (which I was NOT doing on Christmas day when my sister's dog decided to lick the end of my lens), it is a good idea to use a multi-coated filter such as the B&W or Hoya HMC as suggested by HJMinard. This provides an additional guard against ghosting.

The sensor and its anti-aliasing/microlens cover have a tendency to reflect a small amount of light back towards the lens (well, film does this too, but to a much smaller extent). Normally, lens coatings and shape allow this light to pass back out of the lens or be absorbed by the flocking material without a problem. But, a non-coated filter can act something like a mirror - that is, if the light source is very strong, the faint image reflected off the sensor is again reflected back off the clear glass surface of the filter only to form a ghost on the original image.

IIRC, non-coated glass reflects about 5% of the light back towards its source as a mirror would.

Some people prefer to use the lens hood only for protection. I generally do this myself, saving filters for times when I wish to use a polarizer or a neutral density filter. I have, however, learned that filters are a good idea when curious dogs are about.

[Tom W]

Ok, I had a salesman trying to sell me "Crystal Optics" filters because they are special for digital, and coated on both sides (when I asked him coated with what, he didn't have an answer. Gotta mess with them a little!).

I haven't used that brand, and I do own some Hoya, so maybe that's the best?

Thanks!
I believe that I have one of those Crystal Optics filters - the one I have has a silver ring (instead of black) and has no coating. I won't use it except as protection for shipping a lens. The silver ring is bound to reflect light to places on the image where it is least wanted.

[cricket]

I am beginning to doubt cricket. Are you for real?

Please Please pardon me if you are, but a lot of things are fishy about your setup and "knowledge"


I could see someone posing as an attractive female who is like a man shopping at a lingere store. Oh that would be cruel!!!
I don't understand what you are asking me.

I am for real as far as I'm concerned.

I just want to learn more about digital. I know that some of my questions may make me sound less knowledgeable than some of you, but I am so much more confident with film cameras. I'm willing to risk sounding dim to gain the knowledge.

[Mark_Cohran]

Personally, I uses quality filters on my lenses, as well as lens hoods. I've had a couple of lens front elements saved by filters, but ultimately, the lens hoods provide more protection. Using filters as protective devices is a matter of personal taste. Some people just can't stand to put another air/glass layer on their L lenses, and some, like me, think any image degradation, except in the most adverse conditions, is imperceptible. And, you can always remove the filter if you need to do so.

[kawter2]

I don't understand what you are asking me.

I am for real as far as I'm concerned.

I just want to learn more about digital. I know that some of my questions may make me sound less knowledgeable than some of you, but I am so much more confident with film cameras. I'm willing to risk sounding dim to gain the knowledge.


Not questioning your lack of knowledge it is just odd that someone would go out and spend close to 10 grand and not know what an L lens was.

Im sorry if i offended you It just all seems a little odd

[HJMinard]

Not questioning your lack of knowledge it is just odd that someone would go out and spend close to 10 grand and not know what an L lens was.

Im sorry if i offended you It just all seems a little odd

Good grief :roll:
Hasn't this been hashed out extensively in that other ... historic ... thread?

[defordphoto]

Not questioning your lack of knowledge it is just odd that someone would go out and spend close to 10 grand and not know what an L lens was.

Im sorry if i offended you It just all seems a little odd

I cannot understand why this one person (Cricket) is attacked so harshly and rudely for the equipment she bought. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then read.

[wolf]

Exactly, my thoughts too.

[defordphoto]

I use UV filters on all my lenses. My main forte is shooting motorsports and I get into some pretty harsh conditions. However, there are times when any filter can cause problems. Flare and other issues, especially under challenging lighting conditions can be an issue. The nice thing about filters is that they are not permanent. They have their uses and there are other times they should be removed. A very simple process. I use Canon filters to go with my Canon lenses.

[cricket]

Not questioning your lack of knowledge it is just odd that someone would go out and spend close to 10 grand and not know what an L lens was.

Im sorry if i offended you It just all seems a little odd
Well, there's nothing I can do about that perception!

I researched that camera like crazy. I mentioned before that I have been using Medium format and Nikon 35mm. The last Canon I bought was nearly 18 years ago. I didn't know about the "L" glass because I didn't know that some manufactures don't just make one series of lenses.

It would be like if I bought a Lear Jet that has a 40,000 foot ceiling, like the other business jet manufacturers make, and then learning I could have bought one with a 60,000 foot ceiling instead. But I didn't know this because I was flying the other makers' jets. This does not mean that I'm a bad pilot, or whatever, just not well-informed.

So what? I know now! That is a lucky thing for me, and I have this forum to thank for it.

If you want to say non-constructive things to me, then go to my original thread and do it there. I'm here to learn and I prefer more constructive replies.

Thank you.

[robertwgross]

I own one lens that I paid only $70 for. It is cheap enough that I do not use any "protection filter" on it. If the front element got scratched badly, I could toss it if I had to.

On the other hand, I have one $1400 lens, and I guard it with my life (almost). I keep a filter on it all the time, and the hood stays on nearly all the time.

A friend of mine has a Nikon lens that cost him around $1000. He hurriedly threw it into a camera case one time and the front element got scratched.

How much "insurance" in the form of a filter are you willing to buy to protect a lens?

---Bob Gross---

[TammieO]

I take my camera on campouts and hikes, so UV filters (B+W and Hoya) on the lenses for protection.

[Belmondo]

This thread is about lenses and filters---not an inqusition. Suspicions of the nature expressed here should be kept to yourselves unless you have specific information that should cause us to doubt a member's truthfulness.

Any off-topic posts will be moved or deleted.

Thanks for your cooperation.


Tom

[Mills]

I use UV filters (Hoya usually) for protection as well as lens hoods. Seems the safe thing to do and I have not seen a difference with/without.

Now my two cents on this other Garbage. I agree with RFMSPORTS. What the Hell is going on here? Keep your questions coming Cricket. I admire the fact you are willing to ASK ANYTHING of us following your initial foray into this illustrious group.

[cmM]

UV filter are on my lenses at all times, for protection.

One time my brother decided to play around with a freakin dime while I was testing out my new lens. Thank God I had just purchased that day a multicoated filter from Calumet and had just put it on. He accidentally threw the coin right into the filter, scratched the crap out of it. Doesn't matter, at least it wasn'y my lens... So, yes, if you ask me it is GREAT practice to use UV filters and lens hoods.

[Chris1le]

Like Jim 'RFM" said, Canon glass. Canon Filters. I'm sure they would not put their name on a filter that would degrade their lenses. Yes even "L" lenses. I use mine for protection. I'm glad I do after all that crap that got on it today while shooting by the water. :rolleyes:

[boomer1959]

If you want to say non-constructive things to me, then go to my original thread and do it there. I'm here to learn and I prefer more constructive replies.

Thank you.



Good for you Cricket, Let him have it. Some people just don't get it, do they.

As for the filter question. I believe in protecting huge investments.
I use Hoya uv filters on my lenses also, as well as hoods.

[Belmondo]

I have a couple lenses that because of their design, don't allow installation of a filter (Sigma 12-24, Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L, FD 600mm f/4.5). I feel very vulnerable when using those lenses. Otherwise a UV filter goes on everything. There's just too much money at risk.

[cmM]

Tom, if you feel vulnerable when you use a 600mm lens then there's gotta be something wrong with you :p. I'd be on top of the world :D

[Lesmac]

Anotherconsideration when using filters, is that with wide lenses and full frame cameras (1DS/1DS MKII), you need the thin filters, as I've found a 'normal' polarizer on 17-40L causes vignetting, also you can't stack filters.
With other DSLR's with a 1.3/1.6 factor it's not such an issue.
I keep filters on all my lenses, mainly for protection. When tramping around the Yorkshire Dales, protecting lenses is a big consideration.
Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[Deckyon]

I have all L glass (except for the 50mm f/1.4) and I use 77mm B+W multicoated UV filters on all of them, including the 50mm... This is a lesson learned from cracking my first SLR lens when on a trip - no more photos after that... I wanted the best filters at a reasonable price I could find, I mean I just spent close to $6k on lenses alone and did not want to turn them into $3k worth (in image quality) by sticking a piece of plastic in front of that L glass...

B+W and Heliopan are my top two filter choices... I have heard the expensive Hoya Multicoated are fairly close in quality, but I had better piece of mind with the B+W.

The biggeset thing with the L lenses is the size you have to get for filters - 77mm. Not cheap from anyone (that's worth it.)

My opinion only, no offense intended to people who own other filters.

[defordphoto]

I mean I just spent close to $6k on lenses alone and did not want to turn them into $3k worth (in image quality) by sticking a piece of plastic in front of that L glass...

Those filters are very high quality GLASS not plastic. Yes, some folks think filters were created by the devil himself, but he did use real glass. :)

[Deckyon]

I was making a statement of using cheap filters that are easily replaceable even on a strict budget. I know the Hoya, B+W, heliopan, Singh Ray, and others, are all filters made of glass... Don't read too far into it. ;)

[HKFEVER]

Make sure always with hood and filter on (doesn't matter UV or simple protective filter), as long as Hoya UV or better brand or just Canon protective.

Last time I forgot to put on the hood, my 16-35 L ($1200) swing and hit the clif when I leanned forward to climb the clif. Lucky the rim of the Hoya filter (act as a bumper) hit the clif first and had damaged a little bit. Without this bumper, the 1200 len is gone.

[Jon, The Elder]

Hey Cricket- Sounds like you have a salesman that has a lot of "second hand" information and no experience, not much else.

lets use some common sense here. You spend hard earned money for a good lens. A ND or UV filter doesn't add or subtract measurably from the quality of lens performance. It does however, act as a first line of defense for accidents. Better filters = clearer glass.

Lens hoods are another area. Yes they are important. Non-subject light entering the lens at any angle will affect the photo. Reflective/refractive light is unwanted in all cases. Some lenses are sensitive out to 30°+ from lens axis.

also we are back to the protection factor that the hood provides when you are scrambling about.

This has nothing to do with either film or digital, this is a basic equipment topic. That may be why you are being questioned.

Jon F.

[Lenny_D]

Hi Cricket and all others,

I am actually also wondering about the use of filters and lens hoods. I used both for more than 20 years on my old Olympus OM-4 and several Zuiko lenses. Recently I bought a 20D with the 18-55 kit lens and an 50mm f/1.4 and was wondering whether the extra investment in filters and hoods was needed. I understand the protection argument (for that reason I applied them on the Olympus stuff) but I never really needed it.

Does anybody know of a test / comparison of (identical) pictures with and without?
I would like to get some objective proof of the photographic effect on pictures.

Lenny

---------------------------
Olympus OM-4 Zuiko 50mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8 Kiron 105mm f/2.8
Canon G3 / Canon 20D 18-55 Kit + 50mm f/1.4

[defordphoto]

I was making a statement of using cheap filters that are easily replaceable even on a strict budget. I know the Hoya, B+W, heliopan, Singh Ray, and others, are all filters made of glass... Don't read too far into it. ;)

Just making sure our new folks get their facts correct. I don't know of anyone making plastic filters other than the ones that are purposely plastic; Cokin.

Filters are like lenses. There's good glass and cheap glass. There would be a marketing ploy for Canon: L-Filters. ;)

[pcasciola]

Filters are like lenses. There's good glass and cheap glass. There would be a marketing ploy for Canon: L-Filters. ;) Did you say L-filters? Oooh. Where? Are the outside rims white? :D

I use Hoya and Canon UV filters on all my lenses mainly for protecting the front element. $20-40 insurance seems worth it to me, even if there is a slight loss in image quality, which I don't believe there is.

[ronmuller]

Hi Cricket,

Talking with several shops they both suggested that I use Rodenstock filters which I think are the same as Heliopan. The images of the 24-70L are still excellent with the UV filter.

Cheers,
Ron.

[Jon]

I use Sky 1A mainly. Why Sky, not UV? it's what I've always done, even though as I understand it digital sensors are slightly less sensitive to UV light than silver halide. Mostly Hoya multi-coated, but some Canon or Tiffen, depending on where I got the lens. Always multi-coated. Actually, since I mainly use it for distance, I loaded the 100-400 with a Tiffen Sky 1B. The west and mid-west are just too busy exporting haze to us eastern states.

[robertwgross]

Modern digital cameras have UV filtering in front of the sensor, so the use of a normal UV filter out in front of the lens is much more for lens protection than anything else.

However, back in the old, old days with film, film cameras were overly sensitive to UV light. If you were at sea level, that was one thing, but up at high elevation, the UV gets much more intense. The rule of thumb for 15,000 feet is that UV is three times as intense as at sea level. At 20,000 feet and above, it is worse. Humans sunburn quickly up there.

So, mountaineers that use film have to be more serious about the use of UV filters. As I recall, the meter reads the scene as being bright, so it stops the lens down too much. The film then has some brightness and lots of too-dark shadow.

---Bob Gross---

[cricket]

Hey Cricket- Sounds like you have a salesman that has a lot of "second hand" information and no experience, not much else.

also we are back to the protection factor that the hood provides when you are scrambling about.

This has nothing to do with either film or digital, this is a basic equipment topic. That may be why you are being questioned.

Jon F.
Thanks Jon.

Yes, I know about hoods and the protection/use of filters. I just wanted to make sure that when I get my "L" lens (3 days) that I protect it without diminishing the clarity/quality/sharpness. That's about it! :)

You folks are a font of information! I just love reading all of your replies.

Thank you!

[cricket]

Anotherconsideration when using filters, is that with wide lenses and full frame cameras (1DS/1DS MKII), you need the thin filters, as I've found a 'normal' polarizer on 17-40L causes vignetting, also you can't stack filters.
Thanks Les,

I bought a B+W 77mm UV Thin filter! It will go on my soon to arrive 24-70mm 2.8L! I am glad I read all of the posts!

Les, your photos are dreamy and I want to come over and take those walks with you! :-D

[dr.bear]

I put hoya Super-HMC UV/haze filters on all my lenses except for my 100 2.8 macro. I use this lens frequetly in my dental office for patient photos and such along with the MR-14ex ring flash. The annoying thing about this setup is that the flash cannot be mounted on the lens with a filter attached. I use to put the filter on for personal use and then take it off at the office. Well, that got old pretty fast so I don't keep a filter on that lens anymore. Just gotta be very careful with it. You'll have to take that into consideration if you decide to purchase this lens.

[johndm]

Hoya Super-HMC UV Pro 1 was screwed to my new 100-400 L as soon as it was unwrapped christmas morning. Cost £40 though......................