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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 07 May 2018 (Monday) 22:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Protection for 70-200

 
kcjen
Member
44 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
May 07, 2018 22:37 |  #1

I'm not usually a fan of the UV filter on lenses, but having recently upgraded to the 70-200, I'm starting to thing I probably need a layer of protection on the glass? Any recs for what might be best? I shoot a lot of baseball and softball games (down by the fence) and worry about the dirt and small rocks. Thanks in advance!


Canon 5D Mark iii; Canon 40D: EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM | EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM | EF 50 f/1.8 | EF 100 f/2.8 USM | Canon Speedlite 580EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,616 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 477
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
May 07, 2018 23:14 |  #2

Interestingly (perhaps), I noticed that the 70-200 2.8 II does really badly shooting through glass, but is fine with a good filter. I have a B&W MRC on mine, checked IQ, particularly near MFD when the IQ is iffy to start with.

Higher end B&W or Hoya are going to be fine. There are some newer makes, I have not tried, but I would not try to save money. I tried an ICE filter once, it degraded IQ at long FL (some folks recommended it as a cheap alternative to the expensive filters).

Whatever you get, I would test on a tripod under controlled conditions, particularly at the long end.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TreeburnerCT
Senior Member
Avatar
411 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2016
Location: Stratford, CT, USA
     
May 15, 2018 13:03 |  #3

I use a UV filter on all of my lenses save for my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which seems to get really bad flares with the addition of a UV filter. When I shot the fireworks display last year I forgot to take the UV filter off my lens despite warnings in the "fireworks tips" thread and the photos came out great regardless. All of my UV filters are Fotasy 16 layer MRC, they are cheap and seem to work well enough that I can't tell the difference with it on or off.

-Joe


RapidPhotoCT.com (external link) | RapidPhotoCT Facebook (external link) | RapidPhotoCT Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
teekay
Goldmember
Avatar
2,828 posts
Likes: 409
Joined Apr 2001
Location: British Columbia, Canada
     
May 15, 2018 17:55 |  #4

Used to use UV filters for protection. Dropped a camera, filter broke, filter scratched lens. No more UV filters for me!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,662 posts
Gallery: 515 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1438
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 15, 2018 20:00 |  #5

teekay wrote in post #18626365 (external link)
Used to use UV filters for protection. Dropped a camera, filter broke, filter scratched lens. No more UV filters for me!

For me it was just the lens, it rolled out of the load area of my car onto a cobblestone courtyard. Fortunately only a very small mark from the broken filter glass. The filter ring did prevent damage to the lenses filter ring, but with 82mm filters, on what is for the camera a standard zoom, I don't use them anyway.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,895 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1207
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
May 15, 2018 22:09 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #6

Dropped my 100-400. It didn't have a filter on it so no broken filter and no scratches on my lens.

Does puzzle me why people use UV filters instead of a clear filter. UV filters have a coating to eliminate UV, which is totally unnecessary as digital cameras aren't affected by UV. So you are putting an unnecessary lens coating between your camera and the scene. If you do want a protective filter (that will scratch your lens instead of protecting it) wouldn't a simple/non-UV one be better?


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,662 posts
Gallery: 515 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1438
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 16, 2018 11:09 |  #7

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18626490 (external link)
Dropped my 100-400. It didn't have a filter on it so no broken filter and no scratches on my lens.

Does puzzle me why people use UV filters instead of a clear filter. UV filters have a coating to eliminate UV, which is totally unnecessary as digital cameras aren't affected by UV. So you are putting an unnecessary lens coating between your camera and the scene. If you do want a protective filter (that will scratch your lens instead of protecting it) wouldn't a simple/non-UV one be better?


When I bought the one that was on my Sigma 20-40 when I dropped it, which was a Hoya Pro 1 Digital, the only option in an 82mm filter was UV, which should technically be devoid of any visible colour tint. I remember using Skylight 1B (IIRC) back in the film days, and as well as UV cut they did also have a very slight pinkish tint, I can't find my old Cokin filter to check at the moment though. I know that with colour film they did have a positive effect, especially used in areas where there were higher levels of diffused UV about, such as at the beach, or in the mountains. I know that modern digital sensors have both Ir and UV cut filters built into the sensor stack, but I suppose that you can still use modern lenses with older film bodies, so using UV/Skylight may be beneficial for some at times.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,616 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 477
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
Post edited 5 days ago by ejenner. (2 edits in all)
     
May 19, 2018 21:43 |  #8

Filters are certainly no protection for drops, that's generally what a hood is for, although on UWA, hoods are not generally useful. I think it is good that folks point out to anyone looking to use a filter as protection, that it can certainly make a drop worse.

IDK what the current situation is, but I found it much easier to get high quality UV than clear filters. And last time I looked for a 55mm the B+W UV filter was cheaper.

I guess most manufacturers make multi-coated clear filters in all sizes now, but they didn't used to and one gets into a habit. In any case they are certainly not cheaper.

I guess a question is: do clear filters have significantly better transmissivity and roll-off? Does it matter? What about the sensor stack frequency-dependent transmission? If there is a good reason to use clear vs. UV, I think many people would be interested.

I actually usually forget to even put a UV filter on when using film now. Probably should remember that in the mountains this spring and summer when not using a polarizer.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,936 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1008
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 21, 2018 09:45 |  #9

I don't like to place any filters on mine, but I always have my hood on even in the bag or case.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,706 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 386
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 21, 2018 11:20 |  #10

teekay wrote in post #18626365 (external link)
Used to use UV filters for protection. Dropped a camera, filter broke, filter scratched lens. No more UV filters for me!

There is a video on YouTube where a guy does an interesting controlled experiment dropping a weighted (weightlifting plates) steel plunger into the front element of various cheap lenses to see how much weight it takes to scratch and then break the front element. The experiment was painful to watch.

Surprisingly...the steel plunger bounced off front elements without leaving a scratch until he put enough weight on the plunger to actually start to damage the focusing and zooming mechanisms behind the front element.

And that was on cheap throwaway lenses.

Then he did the same thing with filters on lenses, and his result was the same as yours. The plunger easily broke the filter, and it was the broken filter that scratched the lens. Broken glass scratches glass easily; a blunt steel rod scratches glass not so easily.

So for impact protection I go with a lens hood and holding it securely. When there is muck and gradue flying around (like ringside at a rodeo), I'll put on a protection filter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ah-keong
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 313
Joined Apr 2016
     
May 21, 2018 22:02 |  #11

usually, I would mount on the hood, the lens cap would be off.

for protection, I don't use UV filter but protection filter.

one filter I am using is the Sigma WR Ceramic Protector Filter. The transmission for light is very high.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=NtxIaHbxRGM (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=ax9NU8lbvYQ (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_g3J-YpwzHw (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=S4Y4luAfgR0 (external link)


Canon 7D Mark II | BG-E16 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm | Sigma DC 18-35mm ART | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8L IS II
Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT |
Olympus E-PL3 | M.Zuiko ED 7-14mm PRO
Manfrotto BeFree Travel Tripod |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,662 posts
Gallery: 515 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1438
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 22, 2018 07:55 |  #12

Ah-keong wrote in post #18630088 (external link)
usually, I would mount on the hood, the lens cap would be off.

for protection, I don't use UV filter but protection filter.

one filter I am using is the Sigma WR Ceramic Protector Filter. The transmission for light is very high.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=NtxIaHbxRGM (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=ax9NU8lbvYQ (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_g3J-YpwzHw (external link)

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=S4Y4luAfgR0 (external link)


I wish Sigma would do those ceramic filters in a two stop ND in a 95mm fitting for my 150-600 C. If I'm going to fit a filter for a photographic purpose then it might as well be tough too. I say that but actually a sensor with a native ISO 25 would be even better, as then I probably wouldn't need the ND filter either. My problem is that I want to be able to use shutter speeds from 1/10 to 1/160 in to sunny 16 conditions, and keep the aperture mostly between say ƒ/6.3 and ƒ/11. With a base/minimum ISO of 100 there is not a lot of room for shutter speeds below 1/100 especially with a minimum aperture of only ƒ/22. Also shooting at such small apertures has a lot of downsides, even a freshly cleaned sensor will show marks at those small openings, not to mention diffraction effects softening the image.

On a side note I wonder which would be worse, using a cheap no-brand MC ND filter so that one could shoot at ƒ/8, or no filter and shoot at ƒ/20?

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcjen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
44 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
May 23, 2018 12:58 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #13

Thank you for all of the input. I suppose I should have clarified a bit. I do use the hood (always), but since I shoot a lot of my kids' ball games I worry about rocks getting flung up and scratching the glass.


Canon 5D Mark iii; Canon 40D: EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM | EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM | EF 50 f/1.8 | EF 100 f/2.8 USM | Canon Speedlite 580EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,268 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 218
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
17 hours ago |  #14

2018 and people still using UV filter! I quit from it even with film cameras, because modern film and lenses this good.
My 70-200 has always its long hood on. And clear protective filter.
The only protection I wish to add is neoprene on exterior. But too late now. Hood is scratched and lens rings have salt deposits from my hands. I used this lens a lot. It was awesome portrait lens on FF.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

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

523 views & 5 likes for this thread
Protection for 70-200
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 Ronaldwilliam
656 guests, 286 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.