UV Filter to Complete Weather Sealing??

I've read on the-digital-picture.com that you needed a UV filter to complete the weather sealing on some of the L lenses.

16-35 II & 24-70 are ones that I have.

I'm not one that likes using filters but thought of buying some to complete the weather sealing now that I have a 1Dmk3

I decided to call Canon Customer Support and the rep said that those lenses are seal as long as it's on a 1D series and no filter was needed. Of course he was just reading off the discription of the lens.

Can anyone shed some light on this subject? Have you read in any Canon Manual that it says weather sealing is dependant on the filter?

drjiveturkey wrote in post #5155404
I've read on the-digital-picture.com that you needed a UV filter to complete the weather sealing on some of the L lenses.

16-35 II & 24-70 are ones that I have.

I'm not one that likes using filters but thought of buying some to complete the weather sealing now that I have a 1Dmk3

I decided to call Canon Customer Support and the rep said that those lenses are seal as long as it's on a 1D series and no filter was needed. Of course he was just reading off the discription of the lens.

Can anyone shed some light on this subject? Have you read in any Canon Manual that it says weather sealing is dependant on the filter?

The 17-40mm L manual does (or did) say that a filter is needed to complete the weather sealing.

On a different note what sort of filters have you been using? I use a B+W (not to bad) and a hoya pro 1 (very very good)

I find with my 85L there is no difference between IQ with the Hoya filter on even if viewed at 800%+

The B+W on the other hand i can notice differences at about 400% only.

Personally i think if you can get a good filter its seriously worth getting, don't get me wrong i wouldn't use it if it degragded IQ, but there are alot of good filters around these days.

Personally i'd stick to the Hoya Pro 1 B+W terribly over priced and not as good as them IMO

I use B+W polarizers but don't like to use UV filters all the time for protective purposes because of what happened to my 24-70 2.8.

I had a B+W 77mm MRC filter on it for "protection" and had the lens and camera in a small padded camera pouch (just big enough to fit the camera and lens). The pouch fell out of my car about 6inches onto asphalt and the Filter was Cracked down the middle!

I was thinking to myself, crap what if that were from a higher distance or without the padded case. That filter would have shattered and may have scratched the front element! So no more "protective" filters for me for everyday use. I'll only use it when I need weather sealing but theyn I just thought, do I even need it for that?

Have you read your lens manuals?...IIRC, my 17-40L manual mentions that specifically. I would imagine that the manuals for your lenses would also.

I haven't look through the manual yet. When I get home from I'll do that and post the results. I never even thought to look untill now.

drjiveturkey wrote in post #5155767
I haven't look through the manual yet. When I get home from I'll do that and post the results. I never even thought to look untill now.

that's usually the last place i look too .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #5155811
that's usually the last place i look too .

ed rader

I can't even remember the last time I've read the operation manual to anything

I wouldn't give B+W filters a bad rap. Make sure you buy the MRC 010 F-Pro versions. They are fine.

But then again, I'm not sure if OP is going to view images at 400%-800%.

drjiveturkey wrote in post #5155767
I haven't look through the manual yet.

Here's what the 16-35/2.8 II manual says:

I kicked off a similar discussion (for the 16-35 II) in a German forum a couple of days ago. As always when it comes to filter use the opinions were divided. Most respondents stated that they would rather take the risk of a leaking lens than of reduced IQ. Unfortunately, noone was able to describe the difference of dust/water-resistance with filter on vs. off. But exactly this would be the information on which I would like to base my decision. If the lens could stand some light rain for a couple of minutes as well as the "usual" dust in the outback I would not worry about a filter. After all, my EOS 5D might be the weaker element when it comes to water and dust, not the lens.

Cheers, Sven

drjiveturkey wrote in post #5155617
I was thinking to myself, crap what if that were from a higher distance or without the padded case. That filter would have shattered and may have scratched the front element! So no more "protective" filters for me for everyday use. I'll only use it when I need weather sealing but theyn I just thought, do I even need it for that?

:O yeah but in that situation the lens would be even worse off!
I understand what your saying though, personally though i think there are far more instances where a protective filter does what it is intended than instances where it does the opposite.

I use filters to protect my lenses from dirt , not accidents.

I use insurance to protect myself from accidental damage to the lenses.

I use hoods to minimise flare, not as bumpers.

steved110 wrote in post #5157570
I use filters to protect my lenses from dirt , not accidents.

I use insurance to protect myself from accidental damage to the lenses.

I use hoods to minimise flare, not as bumpers.

Exactly. That's why I only put on UV filters on when I need the weather sealing. Other times it just increases the risk of damaging the front element if it ever shatters.

I checked the manuals for which lenses need filters to complete the environmental/weather sealing:

16-35 II Yes
24-70 2.8 No
70-200 f/4 IS & f/2.8 IS no

ethan_esrah wrote in post #5156711
Here's what the 16-35/2.8 II manual says:


I kicked off a similar discussion (for the 16-35 II) in a German forum a couple of days ago. As always when it comes to filter use the opinions were divided. Most respondents stated that they would rather take the risk of a leaking lens than of reduced IQ. Unfortunately, noone was able to describe the difference of dust/water-resistance with filter on vs. off. But exactly this would be the information on which I would like to base my decision. If the lens could stand some light rain for a couple of minutes as well as the "usual" dust in the outback I would not worry about a filter. After all, my EOS 5D might be the weaker element when it comes to water and dust, not the lens.

Cheers, Sven

I thought it was fairly obvious with the 16-35 and 17-40. . . the front element moves when you zoom, so there is no protection around the front element unless you have a filter. The 24-70 and 70-200 IS all have stationary front elements, so they get the weather sealing built right in.

sheawyatt wrote in post #5164549
I thought it was fairly obvious with the 16-35 and 17-40. . . the front element moves when you zoom, so there is no protection around the front element unless you have a filter. The 24-70 and 70-200 IS all have stationary front elements, so they get the weather sealing built right in.

I think you have been ripped off with counterfeit lenses.