Canon recommend using a UV/protection filter on their lens

[fotoworx]

I know that it's a divided world with the use of or non use of filters for "protection" but it was interesting to read that Canon recommend using a UV/protection filter on their lens

[blackhawk]

You prolly don't want to suck in water, and dirt with a lense that is front vented...

[fotoworx]

Wouldn't it still have to suck past the filter thread though?

[ben_r_]

Just out of curiosity, where exactly did you see that Canon said this?

[Vladimer]

You prolly don't want to suck in water, and dirt with a lense that is front vented...

OT a little. I thought the L series is suppose to be more weather resistant then the rest of the canon line up.. so... whats with the holes? :confused: never knew they vented the lenses

[blackhawk]

OT a little. I thought the L series is suppose to be more weather resistant then the rest of the canon line up.. so... whats with the holes? :confused: never knew they vented the lenses

The 16-35L is front vented. A filter completes it's weather sealing.

[Vladimer]

Gotcha, Thanks for the heads up.

[hollis_f]

I know that it's a divided world with the use of or non use of filters for "protection" but it was interesting to read that Canon recommend using a UV/protection filter on their lens

Well, that's a good example of how to take part of the information and use it to spread misinformation. Canon recommend using such a filter on some lenses, only to complete the weather protection. So that recommendation is only applicable if you're using one of those lenses on a weatherproofed camera.

Here's what Chuck Westfall, from Canon, says about filters -

If I knew I was going to be exposing the 16-35mm lens to a hostile environment such as rain, sea spray, car exhaust fumes, etc., I would use a good quality clear or UV filter to protect the front element. I would also consider using a thin-rim circular polarizing filter to cut glare, etc., if the shooting conditions called for it. But in most other cases where the lens is in no imminent danger, I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance, and use the supplied Canon lens hood to reduce flare and help prevent impact damage. Source (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0907/tech-tips.html).

And here's what Erik Allin says -

ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality. Some more than others. With some extremely high-quality multi-coated UV filters – typically very expensive – the IQ impact is so negligible as to be unnoticeable in the finished printed image to most people. Most UV filters exhibit some IQ degradation that can be seen to some degree in the image. Some UV filters can be quite bad. - Source (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showpost.php?p=262247&postcount=44).

[fotoworx]

Well, that's a good example of how to take part of the information and use it to spread misinformation. Canon recommend using such a filter on some lenses, only to complete the weather protection. So that recommendation is only applicable if you're using one of those lenses on a weatherproofed camera.



Well the above is a a good example of YOU spreading misinformation.

Canon USA - Lens Protection/Lens Care 101

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/lens_care.html

Consider using a Skylight or UV filter as full-time protection of your lens, shooting your pictures through it and removing it only when you're using another filter for special effect. And of course, don't forget to use your front and rear lens caps!

[rklepper]

I am starting to think that this is a controversial topic.:)

[blackhawk]

I am starting to think that this is a controversial topic.:)

Not really. Those who don't use filters shouldn't be surprised though when they see splintered sun because of marred front elements.

I have 4 damaged or destroyed filters, and not even the slightest bit of damage on any of my front lense elements.
Those filters would have been my front elements... filters are also much easier to clean.

[SkipD]

I am starting to think that this is a controversial topic.:)Nahhh. What makes you think that? :rolleyes:

[nightcat]

Not really. Those who don't use filters shouldn't be surprised though when they see splintered sun because of marred front elements.

I have 4 damaged or destroyed filters, and not even the slightest bit of damage on any of my front lense elements.
Those filters would have been my front elements... filters are also much easier to clean.

Well, I have no damaged filters because I don't use them, and I also have "not the slightest bit of damage on any of my front lens elements". I do however have several badly banged up lens hoods. Those hoods would have been my front elements if they weren't attached.

[Wilt]

I am starting to think that this is a controversial topic.:)

Democrat...Tea Party...Republican
Right wing...Moderates...Left wing
Pro Life...Abortion rights
Marriage of gays...'Marriage' is btw. man and woman
Muslim...Christian
Death sentence...anti death sentence
Filters always...use em when you need to...filters never

[blackhawk]

Well, I have no damaged filters because I don't use them, and I also have "not the slightest bit of damage on any of my front lens elements". I do however have several badly banged up lens hoods. Those hoods would have been my front elements if they weren't attached.

Bet I could find marring on many of these "undamaged" lens I hear about that are cleaned at least once a week.
Funny, I use hoods all the time, and they don't look that bad. Not buying your story 100%...
It's very easy to mar even a hard surface and most common grit found on the floor/ground is hard enough to do this.

There are times when filters need to be removed, but never using them isn't a good solution for many who shoot outside.
No reason to cause needless wear and tear for minimum (or no) results, or to save a few dollars when you've invested thousands already.

[fotoworx]

Just out of curiosity, where exactly did you see that Canon said this?

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/lens_care.html

[ckckevin]

Wouldn't it still have to suck past the filter thread though?

no. Because the threads are so fine that unless you submerge the lens under water at a high pressure for a while, i don't think any water would go past the filter thread. But WAY before that the camera that u use will already be having heavy water damage ;).

[fotoworx]

Thanks. I've seen those little holes before and never knew what they were for.

[dwarfcow]

No reason to cause needless wear and tear for minimum (or no) results, or to save a few dollars when you've invested thousands already.

if i invest thousands in a good lens, i want to see that in my images. if i damage my front element, i'll get it replaced, or replace the lens with a newer better one.;)

[hollis_f]

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/lens_care.html

Hmmmm, 'Consider using a UV....." doesn't really sound like a recommendation, more a suggestion. Certainly not as definite as 'I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance' or 'ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality.'

[fotoworx]

Hmmmm, 'Consider using a UV....." doesn't really sound like a recommendation, more a suggestion. Certainly not as definite as 'I would remove all filters for maximum optical performance' or 'ANY and ALL UV/protection filters have some degree of negative impact on image quality.'

Mr Misinformation has revisited the thread. You're selective quoting.........

[blackhawk]

if i invest thousands in a good lens, i want to see that in my images. if i damage my front element, i'll get it replaced, or replace the lens with a newer better one.;)

On short lens (200mm or less) you will not see any degrading other than ghosting with point light sources in rare instances.
Your theory sounds good, but in practice it leaves a mess if you shoot where I do...