Buying the 100-400L......

Im almost have enough change saved up for my 100-400L purchase, what filter do you guys recommend for a permanent fixture on the lens. Links?

the lens hood..that is all

05Xrunner wrote in post #5884724
the lens hood..that is all

I second this.

People generally not use filters? would this effect the IQ ?

http://www.adorama.com​/HY77CP1.html

yes it would..the lens was not designed with a filter on it. So why muck up the design and throw on a piece of glass that wasnt made for it. The only time I would ever use a UV filter would be if I was at the beach or some REALLY dusty area to protect the front element from getting stuff all over it. Other then that I wouldnt. I dont even own a UV. now I am not saying never use filters. The others for special effects are fine cause you need them to get a look your after like a CPL, or ND, and so on. Just UV filters are a waste. I am sure others will say different

cool thanks for the info.

Lucky we got off easy on that one ...

...the other point is that digital cameras are not affected by the UV end of the scale as film cameras may be, so UV filtering as such is unnecessary.

dragging your 100-400 through 4 foot grass swampy water and mug while swatting at bugs every 2 seconds will EASILY warrant a UV filter for the protection of a 1k+ item...some of us like to be IN the field ( also there are many canon lens' that weather sealing isnt complete unless a UV filter is added to the front element)...

One must make up his own mind on weather to use one and at what time is appropriate
I notice Little or NO IQ decrease in using a quality UV filter. I pixel peep bird shots all the time

this is the debate we dont want to get into, that I wont get into haha

But what about just for protection? Can't UV and protection filter be used as the same thing in digital?

Or do people not even bother with filters for protection?

edit: wallybud's post wasn't there when i started replying

So if I get a filter to keep in the bag I should get this one (NON UV)? http://www.adorama.com​/HY77CP1.html

Not to put down hoya or anything I would just stick with B+W, I like the brass ring, very non-binding

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …252_77mm_UV_Haz​e_010.html

I shoot a lot down by the salt water, and every time I have to clean my filter off as there is a residue which gets on the lens, not by waves or anything really but it's always there so I use a filter. I use the BW F Pro filters, picking up a new 85 f1.2 lens yesterday and getting a filter to go along I asked why they didn't carry the MRC and the salesman told me (this store caters mostly to professionals) that the Schneider rep told them that to a point they are all multi-coated but in some cases the MRC's have caused problems and suggested they only carry the Pro line, this was the first I have heard of this.

I tested all my lenses wide open with and without the BW F Pro UV filters while on a tripod with the mirror up when I first got everything and on my 17" mac monitor I could tell no difference at all at 100%, I did not expect that but for now until I see a reson not to, I'll use the filters. This is weird because my own history is that I hated the darn things. But at the price of these lenses I figure why not!

I know there are all kinds of tech talk but I have to go by my own experiences and testing. If I find otherwise then I'll switch.

Stick with a Heliopan SH-PMC or B+W MRC filter and you won't have any issues. IQ degradation occurs mostly from using cheap filters.

The 100-400mm isn't weathersealed so won't benefit as much from a UV filter like some lenses where Canon recommends them, but it certainly won't hurt when out in some of the environments this lens is typically used in.

05Xrunner wrote in post #5884724
the lens hood..that is all

That is all I put on mine, too. Lens hoods offer far more protection against knocks than filters do, although filters can be useful in conditions of blowing sand or fast flying stones.

I have given my 100-400 many bangs which would have broken a filter, but not affected the front element (which is much tougher), so I have had no damage. A filter only protects against flying debris, if you knock the lens it does nothing to protect it and the filter can break and the broken glass can scratch the element, thus doing more harm than good.

Filters for protection are simply not economical for me, I have several lenses so that adds up to several expensive filters. buying that many filters would cost me far more than replacing a front element, and would be a definite cost whereas the element is only a possible cost that probably will never happen. For me, spending several hundred pounds to avoid the possibility of a £150 or so repair bill isn't an option, I could have another whole lens for that.

In over 25 years of photography, during which I have ill-treated my gear in many ways, I have never damaged a front element. I do have two lenses with severely deformed filter threads, due to knocks that would have certainly shattered a filter, but they still perform flawlessly and without a mark on the glass. I couldn't fit a filter on them now though, even if I wanted to.

For every lens I have seen that has been 'saved' by a filter, I have probably seen another one that has been damaged by broken filter glass.

There is no right answer though, there is an eternal argument on here between the filters / no filters brigades. You just have to decide what to do that is best for you.

The 100-400L is known for wanting high quality filters though. There have been a few threads on here by people complaining that their 100-400L is very soft, only for them to find that it became sharp once they took the filter off.