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 2013 (Tuesday) 05:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

To Filter or Not to Filter - My new lens?

 
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,440 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 77
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Oct 23, 2013 01:19 as a reply to  @ post 16391909 |  #46

Just want to chime in with a bit of common sense to the OP...

To filter, or not to filter (as long as we're talking quality filters) depends, IMHO, on the quality of the air where you're going to shoot.

Those who say, "judge it by each situation"....yes, I can go along with that. But the sweeping statement "do not filter" really winds me up.

Why?

Because I live in southern Japan, right slap-bang next door to one of the world's most active volcanoes (typically erupting 3+ times per day, LOTS of highly abrasive ash, which floats all over the city). AND, we're not far from China, which equals some of the worst air pollution in the world right now - and it's blown across to here several times a year, depending upon prevailing winds.

So, PLEASE, don't accept blanket statements that filters are a "bad thing".

They won't protect your lens if you drop it - I expect.

But volcanic ash, sand, salt-air, particulate-air pollution...?
I have no issues with cleaning/throwing out a filter. But I DON'T want to clean a front element no matter how "tough" the finish is supposed to be.
¥8,000 versus ¥120,000~¥250,000 is, to me, to coin a popular-though-overly-used-Americanism, a "no brainer".

Regards (/mini-rant ;))

Simon

PS: Not a single one of my clients has EVER complained about poor image quality!


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Oct 23, 2013 04:45 |  #47

skygod44 wrote in post #16391948 (external link)
Just want to chime in with a bit of common sense to the OP...

To filter, or not to filter (as long as we're talking quality filters) depends, IMHO, on the quality of the air where you're going to shoot.

Those who say, "judge it by each situation"....yes, I can go along with that. But the sweeping statement "do not filter" really winds me up.

Why?

Because I live in southern Japan, right slap-bang next door to one of the world's most active volcanoes (typically erupting 3+ times per day, LOTS of highly abrasive ash, which floats all over the city). AND, we're not far from China, which equals some of the worst air pollution in the world right now - and it's blown across to here several times a year, depending upon prevailing winds.

So, PLEASE, don't accept blanket statements that filters are a "bad thing".

They won't protect your lens if you drop it - I expect.

But volcanic ash, sand, salt-air, particulate-air pollution...?
I have no issues with cleaning/throwing out a filter. But I DON'T want to clean a front element no matter how "tough" the finish is supposed to be.
¥8,000 versus ¥120,000~¥250,000 is, to me, to coin a popular-though-overly-used-Americanism, a "no brainer".

Regards (/mini-rant ;))

Simon

PS: Not a single one of my clients has EVER complained about poor image quality!

Well, then your have to use a filter. I have lenses that I've owned for 35 years. I've cleaned the front elements hundreds of times, and the lenses to this day are absolutely pristine.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
professorman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,661 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: VA
     
Oct 23, 2013 09:38 |  #48

My biggest bump in IQ comes from stop using filters.... Yes, I have filters that cost $80+. I use them if the circumstances deem it necessary. e.g. at the beach.


MyGear | Feedback | facebook (external link)|My Site (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Oct 23, 2013 13:15 |  #49

I almost got rid of my 100-400 and then I took off my very nice B+W Filter...


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tknice1
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Oct 2013
     
Oct 23, 2013 13:16 as a reply to  @ professorman's post |  #50

Haven't heard dust mentioned yet. I recently bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 (which I love btw) and it apparently sucks dust like crazy, mostly through the front. Everyone who put a filter on immediately reports no dust inside so I grabbed a nice quality Hoya to seal it up.

This is the one that came with my lens.
Hoya 77mm NXT HMC UV Multi Coated Slim Frame Glass Filter

Anyone know if it's decent?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Oct 23, 2013 14:45 |  #51

nightcat wrote in post #16392114 (external link)
Well, then your have to use a filter. I have lenses that I've owned for 35 years. I've cleaned the front elements hundreds of times, and the lenses to this day are absolutely pristine.

I still own the Nikon F cameras that I bought in 1967 and all four of the lenses have virtually pristine glass in them. They have never had "protective" filters on them and I used to shoot in a lot of risky environments such as European motocross races where I was right at the edge of the track.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skygod44
"in stockings and suspenders"
Avatar
6,440 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 77
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Southern Kyushu, Japan. Which means nowhere near Tokyo!
     
Oct 23, 2013 20:07 as a reply to  @ SkipD's post |  #52

I love how, no matter how many caveats you include to specificy your reasoning on any question (OK, so my previous post was a mini-rant ;)) POTN members will always come back with direct rebuttals.
Love you guys!
:lol:

Anyway, lenses DO scratch - of course!
Or are Canon front elements made from diamond? :rolleyes:

So, to the OP - and anyone else with a grain of common sense - consider your own circumstances before you accept any 100% direct, "factual", advice from within POTN, or anywhere else on the 'net, for that matter.

Cheers all,

Simon :lol:


"Whatever you do, enjoy yourself...otherwise, what's the point."
6D/7D and ALL Canon/Sigma gear SOLD!!!! Now: Olympus PEN EP-5 & OM-D EM-5 Mk2 and 8 lenses!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,833 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6174
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Oct 23, 2013 20:34 |  #53

hollis_f wrote in post #16375042 (external link)
Here are the facts.
  • 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.

Add to that, it's my understanding that all DSLR cameras have a built in UV filter...


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  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
     
Oct 24, 2013 00:06 |  #54

skygod44 wrote in post #16394205 (external link)
Or are Canon front elements made from diamond? :rolleyes:

No, but they are made from something harder than steel!


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
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,588 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 504
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Oct 24, 2013 10:17 as a reply to  @ hollis_f's post |  #55

Bianchi wrote in post #16372965 (external link)
My suggestion would be to buy a very good polarizer, large enough to fit on your largest lens perhaps 77mm, and then buy step down rings for your smallers lenses 72, 67 etc etc., so you can use the polarizer on all your other lenses.

happy shooting

One serious negative to this suggestion: If you have the lineup that I have, it doesn't work. If I put a 77mm filter with a step up ring on either my 70-200 f4 IS or on my 100mm L macro, then the hood won't fit. Since I use the hood as my first line of defense (after simple good sense), your suggestion is untenable.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #16378868 (external link)
Over my short time here, I've seen many newbies ask why they aren't getting decent, sharp photographs with their new Rebel Kit or XXD camera gear. Inevitably, one of the more seasoned photographers will ask if they are using a clear/UV filter in front of their lens. In so many of the cases they are... and when they remove it, their photographs show immediate improvement.

That being said, the fans of UV filters here tend to use quality ones. The problem seems to be those cheap UV filters someone is selling newbies along with their first DSLR purchase.

It isn't that uncommon for someone to post IQ problems only to later reveal that they got this wonderful deal on Amazon, 4 filters for $12. NO wonder they have problems.

I don't use protection filters except for one on my 17-55 to help as a dust preventative. That one is a B+W MRC.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,235 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Likes: 1108
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Oct 24, 2013 10:37 |  #56

If your using a higher quality filter I'd expect little image degradation.

My personal choice in using protective filters. Virtually all of my lenses have never had the front element touched/cleaned because of using filtes from day one.

My 100-400 has no filter because the image quality is already meh LOL!!! Even with a B+W I noticed a slight drop in IQ from my dust pump 100-400L. All of my other lenses have filters. I even put B+W filters on my micro 4/3 lenses since its inexpensive for smaller sizes.

On the same note...I always use lens hoods in conjunction in using filters. Honestly whats another 70+bucks if your dropping 1000-2000+ dollars on a lens??? So if you buy a 70 dollar filter and put it on a $2000 lens thats only 3.5%......people complain about spending 3.5% more ????

Everyone has a reason to use or not use filters....... I know all of my images with the use of filters has no visible issues on a high gamut monitor or print.


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
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Oct 24, 2013 11:03 |  #57

AlanU wrote in post #16395443 (external link)
If your using a higher quality filter I'd expect little image degradation.

My personal choice in using protective filters. Virtually all of my lenses have never had the front element touched/cleaned because of using filtes from day one.

My 100-400 has no filter because the image quality is already meh LOL!!! Even with a B+W I noticed a slight drop in IQ from my dust pump 100-400L. All of my other lenses have filters. I even put B+W filters on my micro 4/3 lenses since its inexpensive for smaller sizes.

The 100-400 is known not to handle filters very well, even those of the highest quality.


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,235 posts
Gallery: 88 photos
Likes: 1108
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Oct 24, 2013 14:08 |  #58

Fernando wrote in post #16395514 (external link)
The 100-400 is known not to handle filters very well, even those of the highest quality.

I agree :)


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
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Oct 24, 2013 14:14 |  #59

It's a personal choice. If you get a decent filter it won't ruin anything.

Specifically for your lens:
23 elements in 19 groups. It's not like putting another FLAT MC surface is going to throw a wrench in the works.

If it was a super high contrast prime with four groups and you're shooting into the sun - sure, a filter will make a difference. But not with 70-200 IMHO


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rocky ­ Rhode
Goldmember
Avatar
1,416 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Sacramento
     
Oct 24, 2013 15:09 as a reply to  @ DocFrankenstein's post |  #60

Many moons ago I posted about why my pic's were not coming out sharp, and lacked consistency. First reply out of the gate was "are you using a filter?"

Yup I was...problem solved.

I do use CPL and Var-ND when the situation requires it, and/or windy days at the beach.


GEAR LIST Flickr (external link)

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

7,174 views & 0 likes for this thread
To Filter or Not to Filter - My new 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 is Dman780
1256 guests, 319 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.