Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 23 Jun 2012 (Saturday) 12:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What UV for 70-200mm lens?

 
Skul
Member
92 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
Location: SE Texas
     
Jun 24, 2012 07:37 |  #16

You can pick up a good Hoya in the 60-70 dollar range.
As others have mentioned, you will see a slight reduction in image quality.
I no longer use one unless conditions warrent a little more protection. (wind, dust, rain, etc.)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Lackie
Junior Member
Avatar
21 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Montenegro
     
Jun 24, 2012 10:15 as a reply to  @ Skul's post |  #17

Hoya HD and BW filter dont reduction image quality!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
Avatar
7,958 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 774
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina and Toronto
     
Jun 24, 2012 10:24 |  #18

Ok... sorry... but you spend all that money on a high end lens, and then you go an put a piece of third party glass in the front of it why? Is there the notion that somehow Canon forgot to put enough UV coating on their L lenses? I never understood this...

The only lens I have ever had damaged while traveling was done so because a UV lens broke and scratched the front element of my lens. I have not put a UV lens on the front of any of my lenses since - and that was over 20 years ago. I do use lots of filters..... and they all have a purpose. But UV.... a good solid lens cap will protect your lens better at a fraction of the price... if that is what your after. If it is about improving the quality of your shots... your barking up the wrong tree. The 70-200 is fine on its own. Paying $100-$150 to see no difference... really?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
F35-Joint ­ Strike ­ Fighter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
118 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jun 24, 2012 11:54 |  #19

Thank you all!

Look like I don't need a filter. The only thing I worry is the scratches of the front element of the lens. With that being said, I use the hood to protect the front element.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sam6644
Senior Member
691 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
     
Jun 24, 2012 12:02 |  #20

A clear filter protects your lens from all kinds of stuff.

I shoot for a living, and I have a filter on every one of my lenses. There have been plenty of times where I've been glad I had a filter, and there's never been a time where I wished I didn't. I've watched people drop lenses and be saved by a UV filter on more than one instance.

I always use Hoya filters and I've always been glad I had them. $35 is a small price to pay for a little extra piece of mind, in my book.


my site (very outdated at this point) (external link)
Follow on Facebook for more regular updates (external link)
and and twitter (external link)
and instagram, too. (external link)
my blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Griz
Member
Avatar
168 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: NW Missouri
     
Jun 24, 2012 15:26 |  #21

F35-Joint Strike Fighter wrote in post #14624880 (external link)
Thank you all!

Look like I don't need a filter. The only thing I worry is the scratches of the front element of the lens. With that being said, I use the hood to protect the front element.

Even a serious scratch on your front lens will have negligible effect on your pictures. It'll hurt your pride more than anything.

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


5D Mkiii, 7D, G11, 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS, 50 f/1.8, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5-5.6, EF 2X III TC, 580EX ii, 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 238
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Jun 25, 2012 02:18 |  #22

When one want´s a filter for a tele lens, he should probably read this thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1199661

For longer lenses the surface planeness of the filter is crucial!
And as far as I now not a single manufacturer for consumer camera filters write about this in his advertising. And this is not tested by those testing filters.

In optical industry this data is normal, see for example the Edmund Optics cataloge. There they write how many wavelengths the filter surface differs from ideal flatness - for example Lambda/4 for a better one, and 4-6 Lambda for a not so good one.

In real optics this is one of the main criteria for filter and lenses.
In photography they like to reduce filters to coating and sometimes transmission.
Only astrophotographers care about flatness, because with their long telescopes they have very high demands - and need for example Lambda/10 surface accuracy.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jun 25, 2012 06:37 |  #23

Lackie wrote in post #14624504 (external link)
Hoya HD and BW filter dont reduction image quality!

  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

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)

3,455 views & 0 likes for this thread
What UV for 70-200mm lens?
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?
Register to forums
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
886 guests, 263 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.