recommendation for filter for 16-35L/f2.8

Hello, I'm looking for a good UV filter for my Canon 16-35L II/f2.8 lens (82mm). I don't want a cheap filter but I also don't want to pay more than is necessary. The filter will be used for protection. I will also be looking to buy a circular polarizer eventually.

Thanks for your help.

B+W XSPro either 007 or 010

From what I understand, UV protective lenses are no longer a benefit to digital sensors. I'd recommend a "Clear Filter" instead. I use B+W but I have a few Hoyas that work just as well.

Lenstip has a couple of detailed filter reviews. I like the HOYA HMC filters. Full multicoating works and I use these filters on my lenses. I would avoid any filter that is not multicoated and I recommend checking the reviews. The Hoyas are reasonably priced and work well.

You paid good money for that excellent glass, keep it free. Use the lens hood and cap for protection. Shooting through windows isn't something I cotton to........

+1 for no point of UV filters on digital camera. Clear, protective filter. I have no problem with Hoya on mine 16-35L f2.8 II.

Thanks for the replies. I will go with clear. I like the post from the photographer who doesn’t shoot with a filter, however I’m too much of a klutz not to have protection on my front element.

I always use a filter out front. I've broken a couple so I know they work. Optically, glass in a good one rounds to transparent at however small you want to measure it. I think lens hoods are dumb.

I've settled on Hoya EVOs. Good glass, slim, well-machined frame, and really easy to clean. That last piece is why I like them. I used to use B+Ws but the counterfeiting problem scares me. Of course my opinion has about as much weight as any random Amazon review.

drsilver wrote in post #19182860
I think lens hoods are dumb.

why? they serve both to keep direct light off the lens & stop the front element from hitting the pavement...

drsilver wrote in post #19182860
I always use a filter out front. I've broken a couple so I know they work.

The glass on a lens front element is a lot thicker and tougher than that used for a filter. The glass breaking on a filter does not mean the same would have happened to the front element. If you had put a piece of tissue paper in front of the lens and it became torn, does that mean it kept the front element from being damaged, too?

joeseph wrote in post #19182876
why? they serve both to keep direct light off the lens & stop the front element from hitting the pavement...

You asked for it.

My main beef is with the size. I was away from photography for 30 years. When I got back, lens hoods had become huge. I've got a whole cabinet full of lens hoods. I admonish my wife periodically about the refrigerator and pantry, DON'T STORE AIR. Lens hoods, when stored or transported, are liters and liters of air. I generally carry 3 lenses in my bag. If I carry hoods, even reversed, one of those lenses has to stay home.

Scott M wrote in post #19182964
The glass on a lens front element is a lot thicker and tougher than that used for a filter. The glass breaking on a filter does not mean the same would have happened to the front element. If you had put a piece of tissue paper in front of the lens and it became torn, does that mean it kept the front element from being damaged, too?

I spent 10 years banging Nikons around. Bumps and bruises were a badge of honor. But I don't think I ever scratched a lens element.

I kept (and keep) UV filters on my lenses religiously, and maybe that's why. Or maybe not. That's not why I use them. It's the rim shot I'm protecting against.

If you drop a camera, it's probably not going to land, bullseye, on the front element. The bezel on the front of the lens is way more likely to take the blow than the recessed glass. If you bang the rim hard enough it will damage the mechanics and brick the lens. More likely, you'll bend the bezel and that lens will never take filters again -- which sucks.

Filter rims are soft metal, aluminum or brass. They chip, buckle and deform to absorb blows. The glass is fairly fragile across its face, but has some rigidity around its circumference. If the frame buckles, the glass will shatter with energy now directed away from your camera.

Filters are fragile. They're meant to be. You want them to be the weak link. If anything breaks, it's the filter.

So yeah, lens hoods offer better protection and provide convenient shade when necessary. But I can't get past the size when filters are 95% as good at protecting against rare events and they're 5mm thick.

drsilver wrote in post #19183113
If you drop a camera, it's probably not going to land, bullseye, on the front element.

I did just that once with a 16-35mm on the front (tripod/camera fell over, from eyelevel to concrete..) and have never used a protective filter since...

thanks for explaining though, always good to hear of other folks' experiences.