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 Accessories 
Thread started 23 Mar 2014 (Sunday) 15:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

To UV filter or not to UV filter?

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 24, 2014 04:23 |  #31

nellyle wrote in post #16781542 (external link)
Funnily enough, the more expensive version ii superteles ditched the meniscus lens!

Interesting. That might have an interesting implication if someone have a bad day at work. The front elements are big - if they also have a delicate shape that could be very, very expensive.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 285
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Mar 24, 2014 04:30 |  #32

I have the version i 500 and to be honest, with the hood on you would have to be trying pretty hard to damage the front element, it's a deep hood.


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (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
     
Mar 24, 2014 04:55 |  #33

Hmmm, looks like the search facility must be broken again...

  • 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.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths - Link (external link).

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
Alwayslearning
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
58 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Sandhurst, Berks, UK
     
Mar 24, 2014 08:30 |  #34

Some good points raised and thanks for your views guys and can see the reasoning on both sides - and it has certainly made me think a little more about things rather than just staying with the norm. As I have only one of my three lenses that I would consider needs protecting - the other two are the kits lens and cheaper tamron lens - then think I will only bother with getting a better filter for that which will only be on when circumstances need.
dpds68 - thanks for the link as I didn't find that when I did a forum search


Peter
Canon 7D2 |, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM, Canon Speedlite 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dpds68
Goldmember
Avatar
1,464 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Trinidad and Tobago W.I.
     
Mar 24, 2014 18:56 |  #35

Not a Problem at all .


Gripped Canon 7D,20D,XT / Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 , 70-200 2.8L,EF50mm1.8 II,Sigma 150-500mm OS, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Vivitar285Hv x2,Canon430EX,Nissin Di866,CTR-301P Triggers,
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpds68/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,100 posts
Likes: 192
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Mar 25, 2014 08:25 |  #36

Buy a good filter, B+W, Hoya. This way you can always take it off, but you can't put it on if you don't have one.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cristphoto
Senior Member
956 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 25, 2014 09:07 |  #37

I always use a lens hood, indoors or out, unless using a polarizer (which often makes adjustments difficult). I'll put on a UV filter if shooting in windy or wet conditions simply for protection. Never had any problems and I'm often rough on my equipment. If you're going to use a filter use quality ones. All my filters are B+W and work well with virtually no degradation.


5D MKIV x2, 24L II, 35L II, 50L, 85LIS, 100LIS Macro, 135L, 300LIS, 16-35LIS, 24-70L, 70-200LIS, 100-400LIS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,165 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Likes: 250
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Mar 25, 2014 10:03 |  #38

hollis_f wrote in post #16781643 (external link)
Hmmm, looks like the search facility must be broken again...
  • 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.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths - Link (external link).

This pretty much sums up my viewpoint. The only question then becomes whether the conditions you are shooting in are hazardous enough to warrant tolerating these items. For me, the few times I shoot in conditions I would consider possibly hazardous -- such as salt water spray while whale watching or hiking through the geothermal areas of Yellowstone National Park -- I also would be using a circular polarizing filter, which offers the same protection as a UV filter to the lens coating while also providing a useful effect. So UV, or protective, filters are completely unnecessary for me.

I did carry a UV filter on our last trip to Yellowstone for the geothermal areas, as the steam can possibly contain corrosive elements, but always ended up using the CPL filter instead in those areas.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marchboom
Member
58 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2005
Location: North Idaho
     
Mar 25, 2014 14:45 as a reply to  @ Scott M's post |  #39

Lots of good opinions here...thanks. Even though I do have a UV filter on all my lenses, your comments do get me thinking about filter usage.

For those of you who have had a front lens replaced, what was the cost?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gregg.Siam
Goldmember
Avatar
2,383 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Mar 26, 2014 06:09 as a reply to  @ marchboom's post |  #40

I went to a cosplay fesival here in Bangkok. (amazing colors, I love them) I am really, really careful with my gear and constantly aware of where everything is, both outside objects an my camera. The lens (24-105) had the hood on as well.

Long story short, I came home at the end of 3 or 4 hours of shooting and I had a smudge on the filter. No big deal. I took off the filter and tried to clean it, no luck. Basically I have no idea what it is, but I can't clean it with any method or cleaning solution. Throughout the day I never bumped into anything.

I know the front elements are tough, but I still wonder what would have happened without a filter.


5D MKIII | 24-105mm f/4 L| 50mm f/1.8 | 600EX-RT [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=bl​ue][FONT="]|
∞ 500px (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SqueekyBoy
Member
186 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
Mar 26, 2014 07:01 |  #41
bannedPermanent ban

Nick5 wrote in post #16784646 (external link)
Buy a good filter, B+W, Hoya. This way you can always take it off, but you can't put it on if you don't have one.

I put a $100+ B&W filter on my 100-400L when I bought it. I thought the lens was defective. I couldn't get ANYTHING in focus at 400mm. Someone suggested taking the filter off. Presto! Clear shots, wide open at 400mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 26, 2014 07:16 |  #42

Yes, the 100-400 is known to dislike filters a lot - even very high-end filters.

A filter can be a very expensive way to make an expensive lens behave like a cheap lens - bettery to directly buy a cheap lens and zero filters and save a huge amount of money :p


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SqueekyBoy
Member
186 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
Mar 26, 2014 07:36 |  #43
bannedPermanent ban

pwm2 wrote in post #16787291 (external link)
Yes, the 100-400 is known to dislike filters a lot - even very high-end filters.

A filter can be a very expensive way to make an expensive lens behave like a cheap lens - bettery to directly buy a cheap lens and zero filters and save a huge amount of money :p

Now THAT is thinking outside the box! I bet filter-fans would even filter the cheap lens. "What's the harm? It's already crap!"




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,165 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Likes: 250
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Mar 26, 2014 09:31 |  #44

SqueekyBoy wrote in post #16787322 (external link)
Now THAT is thinking outside the box! I bet filter-fans would even filter the cheap lens. "What's the harm? It's already crap!"

Or maybe putting a cheap filter on a crappy lens like the old Canon EF 75-300 would cancel each other out and result in a good quality optic? :p


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 26, 2014 09:41 |  #45

Scott M wrote in post #16787536 (external link)
Or maybe putting a cheap filter on a crappy lens like the old Canon EF 75-300 would cancel each other out and result in a good quality optic? :p

Just like Hubble, you just add a correcting lens :p


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

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

7,137 views & 0 likes for this thread
To UV filter or not to UV filter?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
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 pius
1818 guests, 232 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.