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

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

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.

maverick75 wrote in post #17783717
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

marchboom wrote in post #17783707
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
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.

mcoren wrote in post #17783733
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.

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.

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.

Bassat wrote in post #17783741
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

mcoren wrote in post #17783792
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.

Bassat wrote in post #17783735
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?

crbinson wrote in post #17783962
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.

mcoren wrote in post #17783792
...

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.

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

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.

Bassat wrote in post #17783741
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...