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 15 Oct 2012 (Monday) 05:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

question for Canon 70-200 IS II owner

 
yalemba
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Joined Sep 2003
     
Oct 15, 2012 09:49 |  #16

littlejohncharles wrote in post #15123927 (external link)
HI,
next week i'll get my new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I've read in another forum that seen that's a 2K dollars len it's better to protect it with a UV filter. Do you agree with it?
thanks

I use UV filters on all lenses to protect them...


Cameras: 1DX, 1Ds Mark III
Lenses: 24 TSE II, 50L, 85L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II
Flash: 600 EX with STE3, Einstein

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tzetsin
Member
197 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Oct 15, 2012 12:35 as a reply to  @ yalemba's post |  #17

I think you could either use the hood for protection, or the filter for protection (or both!) but either will protect against impact.

As been mentioned already, cheap filters of any kind will degrade your IQ, but good filters wont degrade noticeably.

How and what you shoot will make an impact on which method you choose. If your in a studio where your lenses are always safe, then perhaps a hood is all you need. If you're out in nature and swapping lenses on the fly all the time then a filter would be good because you don't always have a chance to put your lens in the safest places.

If your in situations where you expect your lense to be taking a lot of abuse, then maybe both are in order.

Personally, I shoot a lot while driving to and from work, (canadas wide open north) so my cameras and lenses are usually sitting on the seat beside me. Sometimes i hit the brakes a little hard and a lens might roll off the seat and hit the floor. If I've had someone sitting there recently (which isn't very common) the floor might be wet, sandy or muddy, so having a filter on there is ESSENTIAL for me. I also shoot a lot while hiking, so swapping lenses usually means dropping the backpack, grabbing a new lens, swapping it out and just ditching the lens on the pack sitting on the ground for a bit. Obviously this isn't the cleanest environment, so again, essential to have all the protection I can muster.

but if you never go anywhere with your kit or are fanatically anal about keeping the lenses in their place, then a hood is great protection from impact too.


Canon camera, Canon lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
littlejohncharles
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
50 posts
Joined Oct 2011
     
Oct 15, 2012 14:48 as a reply to  @ Tzetsin's post |  #18

thanks everybody for your replies. I'll use it for portraits, parties, sports indoor and outdoor and in particular for concerts so i don't think i need i filter, but you never know bad luck is always everywhere so i think that i'll take it but maybe not immediately.


Canon 5D mkIII - Canon 350D - Canon 16-35 II- Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II- Canon 10-22 - Canon 24-105 - Canon 100 f/2.8 macro - Canon 50 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,195 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Likes: 1053
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Oct 15, 2012 15:03 |  #19

This debate is endless. The fact that companies produce them .... people will buy them.

B+W and hoya must like me :)

I use both hood and filter. If you've dropped a lens your gonna damage something. Having a hood helps immensely in protecting the element. A filter might save the threads when the hood flies off.

I use filters and I do not see a difference in IQ. I just dont use a filter on my 100-400L because of potential loss of IQ when shooting at 400mm. Also I dont care much for that lens anyways :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | TT685
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tzetsin
Member
197 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Oct 15, 2012 15:06 |  #20

AlanU wrote in post #15125866 (external link)
I just dont use a filter on my 100-400L because potential addition to loss of IQ when shooting at 400mm. Also I dont care much for that lens anyways :)

Lol, this is the one exception to the rule that I have too. the 100-400 on the long end is pretty bad and while I don't notice any IQ loss on any other lens, I do seem to notice some on here.


Canon camera, Canon lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cbjetboy
Senior Member
Avatar
555 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Cove TX
     
Oct 15, 2012 15:39 |  #21

Hood Only here...


cbjetboy
NRA Benefactor Member (external link)
Canon CPS Member (external link)
My Gear List with Links
Some of my pics are located here (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Giorgos
Senior Member
Avatar
263 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Oct 15, 2012 16:12 |  #22

i use hood+ B+w mrc uv filter


5D MKIII / 550D / Σ 35 / Σ 17-50 / 24-105 f/4L is usm / 70-200 f/2.8L is usm ii
solomonidisgiorgos.com (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,107 posts
Gallery: 112 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 355
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Oct 15, 2012 16:19 |  #23

disagree...you have $2000 worth of glass and you are going to put a $20 piece of glass in front of it? I just don't see the point.



My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jshalvorsen
Member
57 posts
Joined Jul 2012
     
Oct 15, 2012 16:27 |  #24

No filter for me, hood is sufficient protection unless the weather is reeeeally bad, and thats the time I'm likely to be indoors as all the models have gone home...


5D MKII | 35 1.4L | 50 2.5 CM | 85 1.8 | 70-200 2.8L II | 2X III
580 ex II | 2 X 430 ex II | Phottix Odin | Westcott Apollo Orb + 28" softbox

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shinyknights
Senior Member
275 posts
Joined Jan 2012
     
Oct 15, 2012 16:54 |  #25

If you had sea water or acid splash onto your front elements, you'd wish you had a filter :)

Sea water contain lots of contaminants and microbes that could easily eat through your front element's lens coating.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pearlallica
Goldmember
Avatar
1,302 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great White North
     
Oct 15, 2012 16:58 |  #26

i have a clear b+w filter on mine. It almost ran me 200 bucks but hey, I'm a sucker for having the best. I've had filters get scratched even though my hoods are 100% on all the time. I only buy b+w however since other brands have let me down. (hoya!!!!!)


jonathan @ tlcphoto.com (external link) - pro wedding and portrait photog
5d2 5d3 50L 16-35 70-200 ElinchromRX600 580EX 600EX VIV285

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alazgr8
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Orange County, CA.
     
Oct 15, 2012 17:23 as a reply to  @ post 15124684 |  #27

I have filters on all my lenses. I am a hobbyist, not a professional, and while I am looking to get the best images possible that my ability, and gear will provide, I am willing to protect my lenses with a filter even if I have to sacrifice a small amount of IQ. I just bought a filter for my 100 f/2.8L macro last week. While making my purchase the desk guy at Samy's said that at the very least a filter will protect the threads on the end of a lens. With lens threads being plastic, it's cheap insurance. -rick


Rick S.
My Gear = Canon 50d ~ EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro ~ EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ~ EF-S 17-55 IS USM f/2.8 IS ~ EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ~ EF 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,107 posts
Gallery: 112 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 355
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Oct 15, 2012 19:21 |  #28

...also, just wanted to add that for the amount that a few filters cost, you could easily pay for a couple years of insurance for your gear.



My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tzetsin
Member
197 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Oct 16, 2012 09:12 |  #29

mannetti21 wrote in post #15126956 (external link)
...also, just wanted to add that for the amount that a few filters cost, you could easily pay for a couple years of insurance for your gear.

but not the deductable...


Canon camera, Canon lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Oct 16, 2012 09:33 |  #30

My feeling, for what it is worth, is that a filter always degrades the image, but rarely to the point that you can see it. We learn to recognize the situations when using a filter will actually show, and can decide at that point to take it off.

For myself, I would rather have the filter there and take it off when it is safe and its being there would be a problem, than not have it there when the protection was needed. Sometimes you find that it was needed later, like, 'damn, how did THAT happen?'


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

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

4,196 views & 0 likes for this thread
question for Canon 70-200 IS II owner
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 is Jon1
866 guests, 250 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.