Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Apr 2013 (Tuesday) 02:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best UV filter?

 
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:12 |  #61

mwsilver wrote in post #15812218 (external link)
Thanks for the feedback, I thought a filter was necessary for all L lens to maximize their dust/moisture resistance.

No, it's only the some of the ones that have a front element that moves back/forth (24-105 doesn't need a filter - well, it's not mentioned in the manual). Some L lenses don't even pretend to have any sort of dust/drip proofing (100-400).


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:20 |  #62

^ Though point is valid for dust, what do you think of Finger Print and associated oil on lens when there is no filter? And please don't tell me that this will never happen with someone because this and that.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,682 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 313
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:34 |  #63

samsen wrote in post #15812292 (external link)
^ Though point is valid for dust, what do you think of Finger Print and associated oil on lens when there is no filter? And please don't tell me that this will never happen with someone because this and that.

Finger prints? Its called cleaning! Finger prints get on filters as well. Not much difference cleaning a front element than cleaning the lens (other then the curvature). Personally, I use the Lenspen. Seems to work fine for me. Easy to use and no mess.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:39 |  #64

^ How many times you have seen price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks"?
Doesn't a cheap UV prevent that?


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sapearl
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,570 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 259
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Apr 10, 2013 13:44 |  #65

samsen wrote in post #15812379 (external link)
^ How many times you have seen price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks"?
Doesn't a cheap UV prevent that?

Well, if somebody has cleaning scratch marks then they really are not doing the process correctly. And a cheap UV filter - because it is cheap and has inferior optical characteristics - will just degrade the image further.

Tbh I have rarely seen "price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks" but then I don't purchase too many used lenses these days.


GEAR LIST
MY WEBSITE (external link)- MY GALLERIES (external link)- MY BLOG (external link)
Artists Archives of the Western Reserve (external link) - Board

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,511 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:11 |  #66

samsen wrote in post #15812292 (external link)
^ Though point is valid for dust, what do you think of Finger Print and associated oil on lens when there is no filter? And please don't tell me that this will never happen with someone because this and that.

Are you kidding? So, you get a fingerprint on your lens. You clean it off!
If you're getting scratch marks on your lenses after cleaning them, it's safe to say you're doing something terribly wrong!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:54 |  #67

monthly debating topic.. Let OP buy some and he will have a clear answer


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,515 posts
Gallery: 127 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4140
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 10, 2013 15:09 |  #68

sapearl wrote in post #15812401 (external link)
Well, if somebody has cleaning scratch marks then they really are not doing the process correctly. And a cheap UV filter - because it is cheap and has inferior optical characteristics - will just degrade the image further.

Tbh I have rarely seen "price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks" but then I don't purchase too many used lenses these days.

And because its not a strong as a front element can shatter and cause damage by embedding little shards of glass into the front element in an impact that would have never damaged anything. I've seen it happen to a very expensive Hasselblad lens. Was working with a good buddy of mine years ago and he always put protective filters on his lenses until that happened. Has never done it sense. Expensive lesson.

I have lenses that are 30+ years old that have never had a protective filter on them and the glass is almost perfect. Also if they are such great protection in reality why doesn't CPS put them on their loaner lenses?

Its a way for camera stores to make money. They make so much more % wise on accessories like filters than they do on major manufacturers cameras and lenses. Sell everyone that buys a lens a filter and that really adds up to the profit line.

You can certainly do what you'd like to do and its your money but the only protection they are good at doing is in very windy, sandy, areas or windy ocean environments with salty water spray and sand I would say might not be a bad idea but other than that its not going to give you the impact protection that you think it is.

If it makes you feel better buy it but you think I'm going to put an unmatched piece of glass on my Leica 35mm 1.4 summilux FLE? No way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,265 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 404
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 10, 2013 15:12 as a reply to  @ nightcat's post |  #69

http://kurtmunger.com/​dirty_lens_articleid35​.html (external link)


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Apr 10, 2013 15:13 |  #70

samsen wrote in post #15812379 (external link)
^ How many times you have seen price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks"?

Er, never.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Apr 10, 2013 15:17 |  #71

sapearl wrote in post #15812401 (external link)
Tbh I have rarely seen "price drop of lens due to "Cleaning scratch marks" but then I don't purchase too many used lenses these days.

There aren't any here in the forums that I've seen attributed expressly to cleaning, sometimes the reason is never stated, but there are plenty of lenses that come up with scratches on the front element. In the recent past I picked up a 100L that was discounted due to a front element scratch.

I've sold a lens for a friend and it had quite a few light surface scratches (marring that didn't wipe away after using Zeiss lens cleaner).

To be fair, I doubt those light scratches would have affected the image any more than a top quality filter, either.

Regardless, scratched front elements are not a thing of the past, super hard coatings or not. One piece of sand can ruin a lenses surface. So can a dirty fingernail, dirty in the right way. And, of course, so too can a contaminated lens cleaning cloth.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
koala ­ yummies
Senior Member
734 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 195
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
     
Apr 10, 2013 16:10 |  #72

mwsilver wrote in post #15812117 (external link)
And unless I'm mistaken, in order to maximize the dust and moisture resistance of that lens, a filter is recommended. i don't normally use UV filters on my lenses any more, but if i were in a dusty area, or on a beach with the wind blowing or using an L lens in wet weather. i'd sure want one protecting the front element.

hollis_f wrote in post #15812158 (external link)
Nope, not for the 70-200 Mk2 (I doubt it's the case for any of the 70-200 variants). Easiest way to tell is to checkthe manual (external link). The first page list drip-proofedness and whether a Canon filter is required or not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …cifications.asp​x?Lens=687 (external link)

Scroll down to "Weather Sealed?/Filter Required?"

The first "Y" is yes, to weather sealing, the second "Y" is yes to filter being required to complete the weather sealing.

From the 16-35 II review:

"Of course, the high filter cost can be avoided by simply not buying a filter. But, the 16-35 L II is fully weather sealed to protect against dust and moisture only when a filter (typically a UV Filter) is in place like all of the other current-at-this-time sealed non-super telephoto lenses)."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

From the 24-70 II review:

"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens has a "Tight seal structure [that] ensures excellent dustproof and drip-proof performance" (owner's manual). You are going to want a protective filter on this lens to fully seal the area between the front elements and the lens barrel. Canon USA confirms that the filter is indeed needed for complete sealing, adding "The EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is similar to other black L-series lenses that accept front-mounted screw-in filters." I shot in the rain all day at Ricketts Glen State Park. While I kept the 5D III and 24-70 L II covered much of the time, they both got wet with no problems encountered."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

From the 24L II review:

"Obvious by now is that the 24 L II is a weather sealed lens. Not so obvious is that this lens requires a filter for full sealing (like all other Canon non-Super Telephoto sealed lenses)."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

70-200's that require filter for seal:
70-200 f/2.8L non IS
70-200 f/2.8 L IS II
70-200 f/2.8 L IS
70-200 f/4 L IS

The 70-200 f/4L non IS is inconclusive as Brian forgot to put "partial" sealing on it, and whether or not it requires a filter for sealing. Given the trend, it's safer to assume yes, than no.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,519 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4814
Joined Sep 2007
     
Apr 10, 2013 16:20 |  #73

good find koala, so in short, if like weather sealing on your partially sealed lenses, put a filter on it....


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
franklinn
previously 'CorporationMe'
Avatar
1,424 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 10, 2013 16:30 |  #74

To answer the OP, I personally like the B+W MRC 010 filters. I have not noticed any differences in image quality when using them in real-world shooting, and it provides me with the reassurance to have a "protective" filter in front my lens element.



Frank | 5D MK II
| 35 1.4L | Marketplace Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrg35
Member
190 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Apr 10, 2013 17:43 |  #75

samsen wrote in post #15812292 (external link)
^ Though point is valid for dust, what do you think of Finger Print and associated oil on lens when there is no filter? And please don't tell me that this will never happen with someone because this and that.

Seriously, how often do you get finger prints on your front element? I have not clean my glass in years besides using a blower from time to time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,175 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best UV filter?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gary gruber
454 guests, 403 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.