uv, haze & protection filters

SpeshulEd · July 24, 2006

My new canon 70-200mm f/2.8 will be coming on Wednesday and I'd like to get a protective filter for it.

Now, I'm trying not to skimp on a filter for a $1k lens, but at the same time, I don't want to break the bank for just a protective filter either. I've read that B+W makes good filters...so i've been looking at theirs a bit. Only there's a ton of options to choose from.

Filters Link

From looking at those and the images included, the picture almost looks worse with the filter though? I'm assuming the example is just a bad quality picture.

Would the $52 one be good enough, or should I consider one of the other ones? and for what reasons? Should I consider a different brand of filter? Do I need to spend that much on just a protective filter, will you notice the difference?

Jeffro · July 24, 2006

SpeshulEd wrote:

My new canon 70-200mm f/2.8 will be coming on Wednesday and I'd like to get a protective filter for it.

For what it's worth all of my motocross shots are taken with a Canon UV filter attached to my 70-200L. I have not noticed any loss of quality. It gets dusty quite often at the track, and the filter gets the bulk of that.

If I am shooting something a bit safer, and cleaner, I have removed the UV filter, and let the lens hood be the lens "protector". I don't remember what I paid for the Canon filter, but I got it at B&H....of course.

wxwax · July 24, 2006

I've never bothered with a filter. You'll notice that the lens hood is quite lengthy. Just make sure you mount the lens hood every time you mount the lens. That's all the protection you should need.

Shay Stephens posted a few rare instances when a UV filter might help your image. But mostly, it's unnecessary.

saurora · July 24, 2006

My old photography instructor always said "Why would you put a piece of $10 dollar glass on $300 lens?" (That was back when lenses were cheaper!) If I had that lens, I of course would use a filter whenever necessary... but whenever it's safe to do so, don't forget to take it off and enjoy what you paid for! I would imagine B&H makes very quality filters, but I have not used them.

SpeshulEd · July 24, 2006

I like this advice...I always felt guilty not using a filter in the past...what if I scratched the lens? However, I do tend to be uber careful with my gear and I've yet to do any damage to my other lenses. My biggest fear is probably going to be beer splatter as I will be using the lens in a bar atmosphere shooting bands...but I guess that'll wipe off.

Perhaps, I'll go with one of the cheaper filters and just break it out when all hell breaks lose.

Red Bull · July 24, 2006

Well to answer your question about the quality, you will see that it says "simulated image" so no, it will not reduce the quality like that. When using filters you are a bit more prone to flare. I personally don't use filters on my lenses. I have found that the lens hood is the best protector when out shooting. You may want to get a filter if you will be shooting subjects with dirt or water all around you though.

Jeffro · July 24, 2006

SpeshulEd wrote:

Perhaps, I'll go with one of the cheaper filters and just break it out when all hell breaks lose.

The Canon flters were anything but cheap, as I remember. And the hood will give you some protection, from bumps and stuff. But if you are shooting where all heck is breaking loose...like at a MX track, there are plenty of objects in the air that will get inside your hood. I'd rather ruin a $100 filter, than my front element. It's just an extra saftey step....when needed. At the same time I didn't want to do the el-cheapo filter either, not on a high $ lens.

SpeshulEd · July 24, 2006

Jeffro wrote:

The Canon flters were anything but cheap

Sorry, I shouldn't say cheap...I mean since its something I may not use as often as I thought I would, I don't feel the need to get the best one money can buy. The only Canon one I see is listed is $35, which is still quite a bit cheaper than the least expensive B+W. I also see there's a used hoya one with a 9+ rating for $19. I wonder if that one would suit my needs for the times when I'd need it.

hmm, any brands that I should stay away from? Sorry for all the questions, and thanks for all the help.

Jeffro · July 24, 2006

SpeshulEd wrote:

Sorry, I shouldn't say cheap....

Duh....you're right...I'm wrong. I was remembering what I paid for all three of my 77mm Canon filters

It's been awhile, I know there was something wrong with my thought process there...:D They have worked out great, and I bought one for each lens, as I use the other (300L and 17-40L) at the track too, and don't want to have to switch the filters from one camera to the other.

I remove them when there is no danger of little rocks flying up and cracking my front element.

Seefutlung · July 24, 2006

If you're gonna shoot in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. outside), I strongly recommend a filter. It only takes one flukly fluke to ruin your day of shooting and week(s) of waiting for Canon to return your lens.

Hood are great for protection ... but a hood and a filter is even better. I've had many a close call where if it wasn't for a filter I'd be crying in my beer.

LAShooters, a local photo group, tested cheap vs. expensive vs. no filter. At 100% crop no real difference. We even voted on which image was what ... only one person got them all right and he admitted that it was pure luck.

A filter, regardless of price, will cause "ghosting" when the lens is pointed directly at a light source ... so you may want to remove it at those times. But other than that I would keep a protective filter at all times on all your lenses.

A protective filter is very very cheap insurance. Personally, I believe that Murphy will always raises its head at the worst possible moment ... just like car insurance, you could drive for decades without getting into an accident ... but the moment your insurance lapses ... bam ... you're in an accident.

Not that I am superstitious, but, as long as you have a filter, nothing terribly bad will occur ... but running around without a filter is just messing with the Gods.

pathfinder · July 24, 2006

If you are concerned about misslles, little rocks thrown from tires, a UV filter MIGHT offer some protection, then again it might not.

I use a filter to protect the front lens element from liquids like salt water, alkali, mud, etc. Dust I am more cavaliar about - I use a Rocket blower and a camel's hair brush for removing dust.

But I ALWAYS use the lens hood. I saw an EOS 16-35f2.8 L get a scratch on the front element because the owner removed the lens hood in Antelope Canyon and then dragged the front of the lens along the canyon wall. He was not a very happy camper that day.

claudermilk · July 25, 2006

I have the B+W MRC UV on my 24-70 and have yet to see any difference. I got mine through www.maxsaver.net --helps with the expense.

BTW, I found a new, unique reason for using filters: keep the sheep noseprints off the $1k lens!

I always use a hood, but taking shots at the fair last week, I found a pen full of camera-happy sheep; one of those suckers walked up & stuck his nose right up the hood before I could react. :uhoh Thankfully the filter was in place as always, so no worries.

So, I'm on the same page as Seefutlung. Why mess with Mr. Murphy?

Seefutlung · July 25, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

So, I'm on the same page as Seefutlung. Why mess with Mr. Murphy?

^5 Claudermilk (Where did you find the sheep ... OC Fair?)

Manfr3d · July 26, 2006

Another thing that speaks for B+W Filters is the F-Pro Mount.
The screw on mount of the filter is not aluminuim (its copper?)
and thus the filter doesnt lock on other aluminuim threads.
I found this very convenient in the field. One doesent have
to use a gripper for removing your ND filter from a Pol etc.

As of 14 April 2006 B+W raised their prices for all MRC
coated filters by ~15% due to higher production costs.
So dont be surprised if you dont find any "cheap" offers
for those anymore.

A 77mm UV MRC Filter now costs 62€ instead of 51€
as before, here in Germany (where B&W is located).

I use UV Filters for protection religiously because I dont
have to worry about the environment, and I dont have
unscrew filters all the time depending on where I go
(windy beach anyone?) and the optical performance of
my lenses is also untouched, so why take the risk of
ruining my lenses when I can protect them?

claudermilk · July 26, 2006

Seefutlung wrote:

^5 Claudermilk (Where did you find the sheep ... OC Fair?)

Yep, one pen with three of them seemed rather excited to have their picture taken. One was definitely ready for it's close-up.

BTW, the B+W filters use brass frames.

uv, haze & protection filters

Comments