Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎10-01-2017

UV filters?

I understand the importance of them....to me the big one is the protection of scratches...I often walk around the yard during sunset with the camera hanging by my side...Daisy, aka, Nosey Nelly, is always trying to sniff/lick the lens...

ANyways, I  did buy a 5D Mark IV. Looking for a "general purpose" walk around type of lens, one of the things I always do is order at the very least a UV filter when I buy a lens. Was looking at Hoya UV filters.

Hoya Professional HD3 UV filter, $153.90, Hoya UV Multi Coated SLim Frame Glass filter, $19.97 and Hoya Hardened Glass 8 Layer Multi Coated Digital UV filter $63.19.

Most of the technical jargon in the photography world still has me scratching my head with that deer in the headlight look.

Of the 3 I mentioned will any of them effect the end result? I have never, until recently, had any quality lenses so I have always just grabbed the lowest price UV filter with the thinking that it is more or less there to protect the glass. In my reading I seem to remember that in some instances if the filters frame is of a poor design it may cause vingetting.

So if you fine folks could shed help clear my confusion I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,607
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: UV filters?

I use clear filters on all of my lenses, including my "L" lenses.  I recommend the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter.

 

I am not sure what effect polarizing light might have on a modern AF system that is looking for phase differences in the light hitting the sensor, but I get sharper photos without the UV filters.  As long as you do not saturate the image capture, you can do much of what a UV filter does to a sky in post processing, and/or in an HDR capture.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,129
Registered: ‎06-11-2013

Re: UV filters?

I "own" but generally do not normally use UV filters.  The lens hood usually keeps anything from touching the lens itself to minimize smudges & smears.

 

But if you've got a pet that wants to put some nose-prints on the glass, then maybe using a clear filter is a good idea.  BTW, the camera has a UV filter built into it (in front of the sensor there are actually a couple of filters which take care of UV, IR, low-pass, and the front most filter vibrates (piezoelectric charge) to shake dust loose when the camera runs a self-clean cycle.

 

So really all you need in front of the lens is clear glass.  But just any glass would reduce optical quality and uncoated (or poorly coated) glass will create reflections which results reflections and ghosting.  This is my main reason for using the lens hood for "protection" and not using the glass filter.

 

B+W brand is one of the top brands in the industry ... and tests show it's not just hype, they really are better.  Their "MRC" coating helps reduce reflectivity, boosts light transmission, and reduces reflections -- as well as helps it resist things collecting on it.

 

Hoya's "Pro1" series filters are also rated extremely well.  But Hoya makes a lot of filters ... some of which are budget quality.  So if you're going with Hoya, then you want to make sure it's a "Pro1" series.  

 

"slim" is just a reference to the ring and threads.  Some ultra-wide lenses can actually catch some vignetting caused by normal filters, so the "slim" filters minimize the size of the ring.

 

As for "general purpose walk-around lens" ... in my case that's a 70-200mm ... which probably seems odd.  But after years of shooting and using my 24-70... I find I like the narrower angle of view, compression, and shallow depth of field created by using the longer 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.  So instead of photographing something with a 24-70 and standing closer... I use the 70-200 and just step farther away but I find I get a more pleasing result.

 

HOWEVER... the more popular choice is to use the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (now there's a version II). 

 

If you only have ONE lens... then I'd probably make it the 24-105.  

If you have TWO lenses... then I'd probably make it the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II.

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,607
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: UV filters?

"As for "general purpose walk-around lens" ... in my case that's a 70-200mm ... which probably seems odd.  But after years of shooting and using my 24-70... I find I like the narrower angle of view, compression, and shallow depth of field created by using the longer 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.  So instead of photographing something with a 24-70 and standing closer... I use the 70-200 and just step farther away but I find I get a more pleasing result."

 

 

One's moods and preferences can change.  What is general purpose for one person can be pretty specialized for another.  There is no one good answer, but the 24-105mm zoom on a full frame camera body is very flexible.  It does not have internal zooming, but neither does the 24-70mm, if that is important to you.  It is for me, in many shooting scenarios.

 

 

For me, I like to shoot landscapes and cityscapes.  My first "L" lens was the ubiquitous EF 24-105mm f/4L, which the majority of shooters who use "L" series lenses probably own first.  It was great in the open areas, but too narrow for many city environments.  However, I still use it quite frequently outdoors when I am acting like a tourist.

 

My next love was the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, which is also great for indoor shots without a flash.  It has internal zooming and focusing  When I am outdoors, I either go with the 16-35, or the 70-200mm that Tim mentioned. 

 

But, I will always have a faster prime lens in my bag, usually 50mm.  Lately, that faster 50mm has turned into a faster 35mm, the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, which is a more compact lens, and it is razor sharp.

Another "walk around" lens that I use during hikes in the woods is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.  It has an usually short MFD for a super telephoto lens.  I think of it as my super 70-200mm.

I do not always need a wide aperture to capture background blur.  It is not too complicated to add a hint of background blur to a photo in Photoshop.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎10-01-2017

Re: UV filters?

Thanks for your input. Daisy is a very curious, mischievous pet. Ernestina, my wife, found her a ball she has a hard time wrecking. One of our Redbone Coonhounds had zero trouble wrecking it. Ernie bought Daisy three new ones. Daisy watched us take the one out of the box. When we had our busy cooking dinner Daisy took it upon herself to open the box that Ernie had folded the flaps shut and take the other balls out.

I do own the 70-200 2.8 II lens. It produces absolutely stunning images, even for a rookie like myself. I have a feeling that next season at the dragstrip it will be the only lens hanging off the camera all day. But I would like to get a "shorter" lens, for walking around and shooting the usually brilliant sunsets out here. There is just SO MANY choices, between some of the Sigmas that I have been looking at and several of the Canons I have been reading about. I really don't want to end up with a bunch of lenses that overlap the others ability, if that makes sense. If a 24-70 will fit the bill than so be it. But with some of the things I have been reading about some of the issues "short zoom" lenses have I am a bit leary to purchase one. Some of the negative comments I have seen have been in reviews on various different retailers.

Again, I would like to thank you folks for your help. I know that some of my questions are no doubt very redundant...and to a point a bit on the "you should know this" area....

Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,607
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: UV filters?

Personally, i do not mind a little overlap with my zoom lenses.  It keeps me from “getting stuck between clubs”, as a golfer might say.  Here is my main lens kit.

  • EF 16-35mm f/2.6L II USM
  • EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
  • EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

I will typically travel with 2 or 3 zoom lenses, and 2 bodies.  I may also carry a fast prime, 35mm or 50mm, instead of the super telephoto 100-400, if I am going to be indoors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎10-01-2017

Re: UV filters?


Waddizzle wrote:

Personally, i do not mind a little overlap with my zoom lenses.  It keeps me from “getting stuck between clubs”, as a golfer might say.  Here is my main lens kit.

  • EF 16-35mm f/2.6L II USM
  • EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
  • EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

I will typically travel with 2 or 3 zoom lenses, and 2 bodies.  I may also carry a fast prime, 35mm or 50mm, instead of the super telephoto 100-400, if I am going to be indoors.


"keeps me from getting stuck between"....makes sense. Which of the first two lenses sees more use, the 16-35 or 24-105? All they all Cnaon lenses or?

The only EF lens I currently have is the 70-200 f/2.8 L II USM. I am trying to figure out which lens should be next. For now will just be used for shooting some landscape, sunset shots as well as some shots of my pups. Would like to get a lens that I can use for more up cllose use at the track. I get there early and like taking shots of the racers unloading their cars, the cars as they are sitting in the pits etc. Last race of the season I used a 18-135 lens, the kit lens that was with my T7i. It worked well for this, but I would also like a faster lens so I could use it for low light. This past year my wife went on the Zombie Crawll in Spokane. the show Z-Nation was filmed largley in and aorund the Spokane area. They host an event where folks get made up to look like zombies and go from bar to bar, collecting pins. It was at night, so using a flash is a must. This is something I will need ot figure out for next year. I had just gotten the T7i and used the pop up flash. Most shots were truly nasty....

Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,607
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: UV filters?

[ Edited ]

All of the lenses that I listed are Canon “L” Series lenses, and all have excellent image quality and construction.  One sign that the lenses are all Canon lenses is the fact that all of the model numbers start with “EF”.  I am not aware of any other manufacturer that uses “EF” to start of their lens model numbers.

I love wide angle lenses.  The 16-35mm sees a LOT more use than the 24-105mm.  I use the 24-105mm mostly at the short end, and I like the wider aperture of the 16-35mm.  I use the 16-35mm indoors a lot, without a flash.  In fact, I use my flash pretty seldomly.  I need more practice with it, because the shots look too harsh and washed out.

Speaking of flash, the built-in flash of your T7i is not very powerful.  Light intensity follows the inverse square law, which means that the intensity of the light drops of exponentially as the distance increases.  In layman’s terms, that means the built-in flash is not very effective beyond 10 feet.  Big “L” lenses tend to cast shadows when used with the onboard flash, anyway.

I shoot mostly with a full frame 6D.  I like to carry a fast prime for low light situations.  I used to carry a fast 50mm prime, but my love of wide angle lenses kicked in and now I carry the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.  Personally, I have found it easier to crop a photo when the focal length is a little short, and virtually impossible to uncrop a photo when the focal length is too long.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
VIP
Posts: 8,242
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: UV filters?

"I understand the importance of them..."

 

Now for the facts.  Filters are for the most part obsolete.  The effects they use to provide can now largely to completely be done in post editing.  Far easier than carrying around a suitcase full of filters. Still a very few do still offer some benefit.

 

The series of ND filters and perhaps the polarizer.  That depends on your skill level at post editing.  The ND is still valuable though.

 

This brings us to the thought of protection.  I recommend anyone use a protecto filter on expensive lenses.  The high quality ones which command significant cost.  This makes less sense to use one on inexpensive lenses.

My reasoning is less for protection from disaster as it is to cleaning.  My theory is it is better to clean a filter than it is to continuously clean the expensive front element.  Ever photograph small children?  They love to stick their hands down that seemingly endless irresistible dark hole of a lens pointed at them.  Akin to the wet nose of a playful pouch.

 

Always use the proper hood.  It offers as much protection to damage as the filter in most cases. When you use both hood and filter you have done as much as you can.  Now you are going to hear from the phooh-phoohers that say they offer little protection and ruin some of your shots.  What they all seem to forget is, filters screw off as easily as they screw on.  If in doubt about a certain shot remove it and replace it when done.

 

After 50 years of photography, my recommendation is to use the protecto but use it wisely.  Learn how to post edit.

 

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Valued Contributor
Posts: 335
Registered: ‎12-24-2013

Re: UV filters?

Filters don't protect "expensive lenses". They only protect the front element which probably only costs about $200-$300 to replace. 

Mike Sowsun
S110, SL1, 5D Mk III
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement