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 14 Nov 2015 (Saturday) 14:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Filter vignetting with Canon 10-18 EF-S lens?

 
marchboom
Member
58 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2005
Location: North Idaho
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:21 |  #1

I plan to get the Canon 10-18 EF-S lens and will get a clear filter with it. I'm looking at the B+W 67mm Clear with Multi-Resistant Coating (007M) filter or possibly a comparable Hoya. Does anyone have experience with using a filter on a lens this wide as it relates to vignetting? Are the thin frame filters offered by the filter makers a better way to go?

Thanks,

John




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,718 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 620
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:32 |  #2

We dont use clear filters as they don't do anything but harm. When they break they scratch up the front element of the lens, so they're not even good for protection.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcoren
Senior Member
Avatar
694 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 347
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:47 |  #3

maverick75 wrote in post #17783717 (external link)
We dont use clear filters as they don't do anything but harm. When they break they scratch up the front element of the lens, so they're not even good for protection.

When you say "we", are you the Queen of England? Because you certainly aren't representing the opinion of all PON members.

I know it's been two weeks but let's see if we can keep this thread from becoming another UV filter war! ;)

I do use UV filters on most of my lenses and I believe in their benefits. That said, the one lens I don't use one on is the EF-S 10-18 STM. I chose not to on that lens because of slight vignetting, which was the OP's question in the first place. I don't keep my 10-18 on the camera regularly, so I was willing to forego the protective properties.

Mike


Canon EOS 7D Mark II, EOS M5, and EOS 100 (film SLR)
A bunch of Canon lenses and a couple of Sigmas
A backpack, a bicycle, and a pair of hiking boots

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:48 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

marchboom wrote in post #17783707 (external link)
I plan to get the Canon 10-18 EF-S lens and will get a clear filter with it. I'm looking at the B+W 67mm Clear with Multi-Resistant Coating (007M) filter or possibly a comparable Hoya. Does anyone have experience with using a filter on a lens this wide as it relates to vignetting? Are the thin frame filters offered by the filter makers a better way to go?

Thanks,

John

Why do you want to put a filter on this (any?) lens? It can't help your IQ (that of the lens, I mean) and it can potentially ruin your lens. Mount a high-quality filter if you need to color balance, want a 10s shutter in daylight, are shooting a rock-throwing contest. The main purpose of clear (and UV, and Haze, etc.) filters is to sell you a cheap piece of glass. If you want to protect your lens, buy a hood. If you've got extra money laying around you don't need, send it me. I'll buy some really good beer with it. Oh, and Thanks!

maverick75 wrote in post #17783717 (external link)
We dont use clear filters as they don't do anything but harm. When they break they scratch up the front element of the lens, so they're not even good for protection.

I'm not sure who 'we' is, but I agree with you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:51 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

mcoren wrote in post #17783733 (external link)
When you say "we", are you the Queen of England? Because you certainly aren't representing the opinion of all PON members.

I know it's been two weeks but let's see if we can keep this thread from becoming another UV filter war! ;)

I do use UV filters on most of my lenses and I believe in their benefits. That said, the one lens I don't use one on is the EF-S 10-18 STM. I chose not to on that lens because of slight vignetting, which was the OP's question in the first place. I don't keep my 10-18 on the camera regularly, so I was willing to forego the protective properties.

Mike


Just want to point out that believing in something does not make it true or real. Witness Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and GB43's brain. I readily concede that not believing in something doesn't make it unreal either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,866 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8740
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Nov 14, 2015 14:58 |  #6

The 10-18 in particular would be a lens where you would want to avoid the unnecessary addition of a flare prone clear filter. Regardless of your philosophy on protection filters, the 10-18 is just a tough customer where flare is concerned on it's own. It would be a shame to make such a great bang for your buck lens worse at handling flare.

If you need one for a specific harsh environment, just get one of the ultra thin ones.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 14, 2015 15:34 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

I agree about the flare issue. I used a Canon hood on my 10-22, and never had a flare problem. I took my 10-18 out for the first time the other day and had flare issues with the sun outside the frame. I wish I'd saved the shot. There was one big green blob and two smaller purple ones. I'm fine with that. I bought it primarily for the STM video focusing on my 70D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcoren
Senior Member
Avatar
694 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 347
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
     
Nov 14, 2015 15:43 |  #8

Bassat wrote in post #17783741 (external link)
Just want to point out that believing in something does not make it true or real. Witness Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and GB43's brain. I readily concede that not believing in something doesn't make it unreal either.

Touche!

The same can be said for the belief that a *high quality* UV filter degrades the image in ways that people can actually see. Note the emphasis on "high quality", e.g. B+W, Hoya, etc. I'm not talking about some $3 no-name window glass filter from eBay.

No filter is perfect, and any glass will affect the light that passes through it. My contention is that this effect can not be readily seen by human vision.

Mike


Canon EOS 7D Mark II, EOS M5, and EOS 100 (film SLR)
A bunch of Canon lenses and a couple of Sigmas
A backpack, a bicycle, and a pair of hiking boots

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 14, 2015 16:27 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

mcoren wrote in post #17783792 (external link)
Touche!

The same can be said for the belief that a *high quality* UV filter degrades the image in ways that people can actually see. Note the emphasis on "high quality", e.g. B+W, Hoya, etc. I'm not talking about some $3 no-name window glass filter from eBay.

No filter is perfect, and any glass will affect the light that passes through it. My contention is that this effect can not be readily seen by human vision.

Mike

Let's not forget that the lens matters, too. I paid $129 for my 77mm B&W and never had a problem with it until I mounted it on my brand new 100-400. THAT lens does not like filters. Same filter on my 70-200 2.8 had no noticeable effect.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crbinson
Senior Member
614 posts
Likes: 89
Joined Jul 2012
Location: OKC
     
Nov 14, 2015 18:35 |  #10

Bassat wrote in post #17783735 (external link)
Why do you want to put a filter on this (any?) lens? It can't help your IQ (that of the lens, I mean) and it can potentially ruin your lens.

Just curious...what is the potential hazard of using a filter that might ruin your lens?


My Flickr (external link) | My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 14, 2015 19:10 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

crbinson wrote in post #17783962 (external link)
Just curious...what is the potential hazard of using a filter that might ruin your lens?

This mode of thinking has two sides, so please don't take my word as the end-all. This debate will go on as long as lenses exist.

Lens front elements are a lot tougher than any filter you may put in front of them. Which means a filter will (can, may) shatter from an impact that would not damage your lens. Then the broken filter shards can damage the front element of your lens. Having the filter on that lens has caused damage that would not otherwise exist. I agree with that theory. Others do not.

I don't use filters without a specific reason. I have never had a lens front element damaged, via a broken filter, or otherwise. Besides agreeing with the above theory, I don't see the sense in paying for a piece of glass that can't help my images. On top of that, having to buy a different one for every lens I own. I do use CPL and ND filters, when I have a use for them. I don't use 'protective' filters because in my mind there is no such thing. I hope that helps.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,866 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8740
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Nov 14, 2015 21:00 |  #12

mcoren wrote in post #17783792 (external link)
...

No filter is perfect, and any glass will affect the light that passes through it. My contention is that this effect can not be readily seen by human vision.

Mike

True, I could not see a difference in IQ when I had the filter that caused me to stop using them. IQ was fine to my eyes. The issue was that it ruined the lenses ability to AF accurately under certain lighting conditions ( an older 70-200mm f/2.8) That was the first filter I took off and never put back on.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Petie53
Senior Member
373 posts
Likes: 96
Joined Jan 2014
     
Nov 14, 2015 21:23 |  #13

I have no where near the experience of many here but what I experienced was with my high dollar 24-70L I put a "protective" uv filter on it. It was a higher end B&W model around $150. What I found was I would get weird flare blobs in my images at times. Seems like the light was reflecting off the front lens glass and bouncing back off the filter. I removed the filter and the flaring went away almost totally. I only use filters for polarizing or ND now.
Pete


Pete
6D, 60D, EOS-M, EOS-M3, 22M, 11-22M, 18-55M, 55-200M, 15L 2.8 fisheye, 10-22 EFS, 35 F/2 IS USM, 18-135 STM, 24-70L 2.8 II, 70-300L, 100-400L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cedm
Senior Member
629 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2008
Location: KL, Malaysia
     
Nov 14, 2015 23:45 |  #14

Back on topic now: does one need to get a slim frame filter vs a regular one to avoid vignetting on the EF-S 10-18mm?

I plan to get a ND (6 or 9-stop) and a CPL. Will be sharing it with my other lenses, but its primary use is likely to be on my UWA.

I know about CPL banding on UWA, and not asking whether clear/UV filters are worth it. Just about vignetting :P Thx.


My gear: EOS 60D | EF-S 10-18 STM | Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 | EF-S 24 STM | EF 50 F/1.8 | EF-S 55-250 IS | EF 100 F/2.8 macro | 430EX.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stevewf1
Senior Member
Avatar
794 posts
Likes: 79
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Indianapolis
     
Nov 15, 2015 04:07 |  #15

Bassat wrote in post #17783741 (external link)
Just want to point out that believing in something does not make it true or real. Witness Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and GB43's brain. I readily concede that not believing in something doesn't make it unreal either.

Careful there... Marketing types get paid the Big Bucks to make us believe... After all, perception is reality...


Steve

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

9,190 views & 4 likes for this thread
Filter vignetting with Canon 10-18 EF-S 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 rush1981
609 guests, 254 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.