topic Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens? in EF & RF Lenses

UV filter or CP to protect lens?

limvo05 — Sat, 12 May 2018 05:01:04 GMT

Hello,

Just bought my first Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM lens. I was wondering if anyone could give me some advises on either using a UV filter or CP to protect the lens? I am leaning toward the latter, i.e. CP as it dubs as both lens protector and CP functions. Also, what filter brand would you recommend? I hate to have the filter distorts the lens sharpness.

Thanks,

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

RobertTheFat — Sat, 12 May 2018 11:34:10 GMT

Get the CP (a good one, for such a good lens), but don't leave it on all the time. Even at its brightest setting, it will have some effect on incoming light. And because of the way polarized light occurs in nature, the effect often won't be the same over the entire frame.

Unless you're going to be photographing in a sandstorm, I wouldn't try to use a protective filter. Some will disagree, but I think that under normal conditions a protective filter is, at best, nearly useless.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 12 May 2018 14:02:26 GMT

This is the filter you need, the B+W 77mm Clear MRC 007M Filter. You can use the B+W 77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter and I doubt you will be able to tell the difference. However in certain situations you might see a tiny bit if you really pixel peep.

You don't want to use a CP for a protecto filter. Other than an ND or possibly a CP, the protecto filter are the only ones that have not become obsolete.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

limvo05 — Sat, 12 May 2018 14:38:29 GMT

Thank you both for responding and giving suggestions.

My initial thought was not to use any protective covers over the lens as they might impare the sharpness of the lens. On the other hand accident can happen and you'll never know when.

Anyway, here's the setup. I have the 5Ds. A 24-70 2.8 mark ii, and now this canon! I would like to be able to both lenses with the filter sets I have from Lee. Wondering if putting a protective filter on the lens would preventing me from mounting the Lee filter holder on them? Would I'll be introducing any adverse effect having Lee and the protective filter on the lens?

Thank you all,

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

limvo05 — Sat, 12 May 2018 14:43:32 GMT

Thanking you for your advise. I am curious what are the differences between B+W 77mm Clear MRC 007M Filter and B+W 77mm Clear MRC 007M Filter. Both seems to have very good rating? Thanks!

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

Waddizzle — Sat, 12 May 2018 16:39:34 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Thanking you for your advise. I am curious what are the differences between B+W 77mm Clear MRC 007M Filter and B+W 77mm Clear MRC 007M Filter. Both seems to have very good rating? Thanks!

I only use the Nano versions of the B+W Clear filters. The colors in my images are great. I can leave the Clear filter in place all of the time, indoors and out. It is far safer and easier to clean a filter than it is to clean the front element of an expensive lens.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

limvo05 — Sat, 12 May 2018 16:52:08 GMT

Would you recommend this B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M)?

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

Waddizzle — Sat, 12 May 2018 17:10:28 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Would you recommend this B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M)?

B+W makes great filters. I only use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano filters. Anything besides Clear is not a “protective” filter in my book. A UV Haze filter fills a specific shooting scenario, as [do] CP and ND filters. A UV would not be suitable for general purpose photography, IMHO. It would not be useful indoors when shooting with a flash, for example.

Besides, the sensor assembly in nearly every DSLR has a UV filter built into it. Technically, you should not need a UV filter. I used to have UV filters on my lenses, and I could never seem to get WB looking quite correct. Once I switched to the Nano Clear, suddenly my colors looked brighter and more properly balanced.

The Nano coating is an extra top layer that causes moisture to bead up, instead of smearing, so that it can be more easily wiped away, such as when you are cleaning it. I could be imagining things, but the filters never seem to get dirty, except when my fingers rub on them when I put a lens cap in place. I think the filters have anti-static properties, so dust does not cling.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

Waddizzle — Sat, 12 May 2018 19:14:07 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Unless you're going to be photographing in a sandstorm, I wouldn't try to use a protective filter. Some will disagree, but I think that under normal conditions a protective filter is, at best, nearly useless.

Yeah, I am on of those that disagree with the opinion that “protective” filters are not useful. They are, but only the clear ones, IMHO. I do not consider UV, CP, or ND filters to be “protective filters.” Those filters are used for effect, not protection. They do not have the all-purpose versatility of a Clear filter.

Last month, my son took his toddler out to the park for some play time and photographs. He was using a 7D2 and the 18-135mm lens. On the drive to the park, he had to slam on the brakes, and the camera bag went flying. When he arrived at the park, he discovered that the B+W filter was cracked, but the lens and camera seemed to operate just fine. He never did explain what happened to the lens cap, though.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

TCampbell — Sat, 12 May 2018 23:36:00 GMT

The best way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it.

I "own" UV fitlers, but generally don't use them. Fitlers create reflections that can result in "ghosting" on your images ... they often make things worse. If you do use filters, spring the extra $$$ to buy filters with good anti-reflective coatings.

Don't use a CP as a protecting filter... use that *only* when you actually need to polarize the light. Polarizers will cut a good deal of the light ... substantially changing your exposure.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

RobertTheFat — Sun, 13 May 2018 00:44:21 GMT

@TCampbell wrote:
The best way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it.

I "own" UV fitlers, but generally don't use them. Fitlers create reflections that can result in "ghosting" on your images ... they often make things worse. If you do use filters, spring the extra $$$ to buy filters with good anti-reflective coatings.

Don't use a CP as a protecting filter... use that *only* when you actually need to polarize the light. Polarizers will cut a good deal of the light ... substantially changing your exposure.

I agree with Tim and have regretted it only once. I had been photographing a lecture or panel discussion at work; and while snapping off a few during the meet-and-greet session afterwards, I helped myself at the buffet table. I discovered a half hour later that one of my lenses (the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, IIRC) had had an encounter with a bowl of sour cream dip. Lesson learned: If you're wearing a camera, stay away from the food!

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

limvo05 — Sun, 13 May 2018 03:29:37 GMT

Thank you Bob and Tim for the comment and suggestion.

I would say lens hood such as those for 70-200 might provides sufficient protection for the lens, especially front element. I am not certain the same can be said for the hood that came with the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii. It is very shallow, which don't provide much protection at all. Wondering if canon has another hood for this lens?

Cheers,

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

Waddizzle — Sun, 13 May 2018 07:21:28 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:

I would say lens hood such as those for 70-200 might provides sufficient protection for the lens, especially front element. I am not certain the same can be said for the hood that came with the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii. It is very shallow, which don't provide much protection at all. Wondering if canon has another hood for this lens?

Cheers,
LV

No. If there were another hood, such as a hood with longer petals, then it is possible for the petals to show up in the frame at the shorter focal length settings. As you noted, a hood can only offer so much protection at short focal lengths. A properly sized hood is a function of the focal length of the lens, not the diameter of the front element or filter threads.

A clear, protective filter provides more than protection against bumps and bangs. My filters keep the front element of my lenses clean. I have never really had to clean the front elements. But, the filters I have had to clean, most especially on the most heavily used lenses.

There are pros and cons to using a screw-on filter to protect the lens.

I, for one, am clumsy when it comes replacing a lens cap. So, knowing that I am rubbing the cap against a filter, instead of the front element, makes it worth it for me. Cleaning a filter is easier and safer than cleaning the front element, so it is worth it to me. The high quality clear filters have very little, if any, effect on image quality.

The purist argument says that you can go without a filter. The practical argument says you are better with one, than without one. All I say is that if you choose to go with a protective filter, then choose a high quality clear filter.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

Waddizzle — Sun, 13 May 2018 07:57:27 GMT

@TCampbell wrote:
The best way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it.

I "own" UV fitlers, but generally don't use them. Fitlers create reflections that can result in "ghosting" on your images ... they often make things worse. If you do use filters, spring the extra $$$ to buy filters with good anti-reflective coatings.

Don't use a CP as a protecting filter... use that *only* when you actually need to polarize the light. Polarizers will cut a good deal of the light ... substantially changing your exposure.

A hood does offer protection against bumps. But, that protection vanishes as the focal length becomes shorter. A hood protects a longer lens better than a shorter one.

In the case of my son, who broke his filter while the camera was in the bag when it flew off of the car seat, the hood was mounted in a reversed position for storage, he said.

I agree that if you do not need UV, CP, or ND for a specific shot, then you should use one.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 13 May 2018 14:21:26 GMT

"~~The best~~ Another way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it."

Sentence was corrected. How anybody can say they would prefer to clean the front element of a lens in favor of a replaceable filter is beyond me. But it does take all types of folks to make a world.

One other aspect to this is, filters remove as easily as they attach. If you encounter a ghosting problem take it off. Geez, how hard is that? With high quality protecto filters ghosting is rarely an issue.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 13 May 2018 14:24:52 GMT

"I had been photographing a lecture or panel discussion at work;..."

Must have been adults? The situation is much different when photographing kids events.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

TCampbell — Sun, 13 May 2018 15:28:57 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"~~The best~~ Another way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it."

Sentence was corrected. How anybody can say they would prefer to clean the front element of a lens in favor of a replaceable filter is beyond me. But it does take all types of folks to make a world.

One other aspect to this is, filters remove as easily as they attach. If you encounter a ghosting problem take it off. Geez, how hard is that? With high quality protecto filters ghosting is rarely an issue.

#1 ... handle the camera & lenses properly to protect them from getting dirty. Pop the dust caps on the lenses when you're finished using them. Keep the camera body stored either with lens attached or with the body dust caps attached. When changing a lens in the field, don't do it in a spot where the sand & dust is blowing... protect it.

#2 ... I don't clean a lens because I was able to find one piece of dust on it... I clean my lens when there's something that will obviously need to be removed. This means sometimes go a few years between cleanings (no kidding -- I don't think I have ever cleaned the same lens twice in the same year.)

#3 ... the lens actually is glass... not plastic. Glass is actually hard... very hard. It's difficult to scratch real glass unless you something on your lens that is harder than glass. But you'd never do that when cleaning the lens. So don't use sandpaper to clean the lens. Use a clean soft microfiber cloth. Don't use harsh cleaners... usually a drop of water is good enough ... lightly moisten a corner of the cleaning cloth in ordinary water and give it a wipe (water is a universal solvent for everything except lipids). Give it a gentle wipe... then use a dry corner to give it another soft wipe... and it's good as new.

The problem with leaving a filter on all the time... is that you may not notice issues until you get back to your computer, import your shots for the day, then look at them on a large monitor. You start to notice things you couldn't see on the small 3" screen.

Having grown up in the era where film was sensitive to UV light, we always used a UV filter. Now that the camera has a built-in UV filter, the lens filter is no longer needed ... but the habbit of owning one for every lens stuck with me. It wasn't until I realized that other photographers weren't using filters and were getting slightly better quality than me... that I stopped using the filters (and am happier for it.) I still own them. If I'm shooting at a location where I think they'll be helpful, I will put one on the lens. But they don't live on the lenses.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 13 May 2018 15:42:45 GMT

"But it does take all types of folks to make a world."

Shooting the heavens is not the same as shooting for a living. Two different 'worlds' there my friend. It isn't the 'hard' glass that is damaged. It is the lens coatings that is vulnerable. I totally agree most folks probably clean their lenses and filters way more than they need to. A little gunk on the front element won't effect the photo. While ghosting can happen it is so rare with high quality filters I really never worry about it. There again shooting the stars is different. If in doubt, take it off.

If you like'em, use'em. If you don't, don't. But they do serve a purpose.

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

RobertTheFat — Sun, 13 May 2018 15:56:23 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"I had been photographing a lecture or panel discussion at work;..."

Must have been adults? The situation is much different when photographing kids events.

They were adults, though I have to confess that I'm missing your point. Is it that the kids would have wolfed down all the sour cream dip before I had a chance to get my lens near it?

Re: UV filter or CP to protect lens?

RobertTheFat — Sun, 13 May 2018 16:01:35 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"~~The best~~ Another way to protect the lens is to attach the lens hood so that nothing can bang the end of it."

Sentence was corrected. How anybody can say they would prefer to clean the front element of a lens in favor of a replaceable filter is beyond me. But it does take all types of folks to make a world.

One other aspect to this is, filters remove as easily as they attach. If you encounter a ghosting problem take it off. Geez, how hard is that? With high quality protecto filters ghosting is rarely an issue.

Get off your high horse, Ernie. If you have a ghosting problem, you're most likely to notice it in post-processing. What good does taking off the filter do then?