UV Filter for 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

Ok, let's here it. I want to see how many here uses one for it and if you do, what brand and what kind?

I'm debating whether I should get one.

nutsnbolts wrote in post #5782646
I'm debating whether I should get one.

Well this is a new discussion around here

Yeah, I'm opening up a can of new worms here. Always good to refresh memory.

Read the protective filter FAQ sticky at the top of the forum.

As for me, I use protective filters only in harsh conditions with rain or blowing debris. Never had a lens scratch.

Well nutsnbolts..........if your prone to bangin on stuff or its really really dusty, then maybe yes.

Otherwise, why add extra glass to that "fine lens".

Chuck

Im not even going to get involved in this thread, sorry mate

Zzzz...

I'll probably get hate mail for this. But I use one. It's a B&W multi-coated. The protective filter sticky has some of the reasons for using them and I'm one of those odd people who support using them. That sticky has a great discussion of the pro's and con's of using filters for protection.

Bobarian65 wrote in post #5782911
I'll probably get hate mail for this. But I use one. It's a B&W multi-coated. The protective filter sticky has some of the reasons for using them and I'm one of those odd people who support using them. That sticky has a great discussion of the pro's and con's of using filters for protection.

Not odd at all mate

Oops I said I wasnt getting involved

nutsnbolts wrote in post #5782646
Ok, let's here it. I want to see how many here uses one for it and if you do, what brand and what kind?

I'm debating whether I should get one.

Do you use one on your 10-22?
Do you use one on your 17-55?
Do you use one on your 70-200 F/4?
Do you use one on your 85?
Do you use one on your 50?

If you answer these questions and you see a trend going, then perhaps you should stick with it. I'm assuming you don't use filters now since you're asking "should I" and "what brand". The question is, why are you asking it about the 70-200 F/2.8 IS in particular? What is different about this lens that makes you consider the UV filter and not question it for your other lenses?

The answers will vary, read the stickies, do some searches, and decide for yourself if a UV is worth it.

FWIW - the only filter I use a UV on (and only one I ever have) is the 17-55, I do so in hopes of preventing the dust issue, not for protection otherwise. I'm a hood guy, not a UV'er

I have one on my 17-55 for dust protection. I'll probably put one on my 70-200 as well. If i need that extra hair of sharpness, I'll take it off. (I probably can't tell the difference anyways)

Ok let me see if I can club some of the answers here. I am a supporter for UV filters...sorry, protective filters. For me, I use them in all my lens, due to the fact that i do a lot of travel photography and I have gotten into harsh environments. I take care of my lens but that extra piece of glass makes me feel a lot better and allows me to handle my lens a little bit more vicariously. (I think it's psychological).

The bottom line is, this post is not a debate whether it's good to use or not. I'm asking whether anyone here WHO HAS THE 70-200 F/2.8 IS and use a protective FILTER, their experience with it.

As stated, I have them all on my lens. The tact hair difference in sharpness does not matter to me. I feel more comfortable taking the sleeve of my shirt to wipe the glass with the protective filter rather than directly on the lens itself.

nutsnbolts wrote in post #5783622
...I'm asking whether anyone here WHO HAS THE 70-200 F/2.8 IS and use a protective FILTER, their experience with it...

Okay, I'll bite.

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and use a Heliopan SH-PMC 77mm UV filter with it, always have, never remove it, notice NO difference in IQ with/without.

Yep me too

I've got a Hoya pro-1 on mine (and all the others too) ... I've never used it without..... but am really pleased with those filters and the lens

B+W MRC UV, like on all my other lenses, and I haven't seen any indication of problems due to that.