topic Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm) in EF & RF Lenses

Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

TexasTea — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:53:31 GMT

I'm looking at getting a clear UV filter for my lens and am unfamiliar with the top brands that won't degrade the image quality. Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

jimscaf — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:38:14 GMT

I purchased a Hoya UV with my lens last month and it works fine as I haven't noticed any image quality so far.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

jfo — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:37:17 GMT

I use the "B+W" brand filters (with Multi-Reflective Coating (MRC)) on most of my lenses.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

ScottyP — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:31:20 GMT

Don't get an aluminum one.

Get one made from brass; the threads don't bind up and stick on the lens nearly so bad, and it won't deform nearly so easily. I have a B&W 77mm on my 70-200, and it just feels much better than the aluminum 77mm I have on my 17-55.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

TexasTea — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:54:03 GMT

Thank you everyone for the input! Helps out tremendously.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

Samsen — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:05:36 GMT

B+W is by far the best you can get but that comes with a price tage.

Also not all are equal in built.

Hoya is a the best quality for money.

Make sure to use thinner filters for ultra wide lenses. Your widest part of zoom, 24 is still not that wide so any descent filter should be fine.

Avoid unNamed cheap internet filters. Some are very poorly built with uneven surface and thickness.
What this means is that if you used it with a tele lens, you will magnify all the imperfections built into filter and get a bad distorted image or due to lack of coating, internal reflection happens when a sourse of light is in the field of view and your image will suffer badly from lens flare. I had a Sigma 50-500 and because diameter of filter is so wide, I could not find a decent filter. A cheap one (CPL and UV) bought on ebay made OK job at wide side of zoom but to great surprise, lens could not focus at all at 500mm zoom side, due to total distortion of image.

Afteral you get what you pay for but you don't go wrong with Hoya HMC multi coated UV that should be about $17 on ebay etc.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

jfo — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:21:14 GMT

@Samsen wrote:

Afteral you get what you pay for but you don't go wrong with Hoya HMC multi coated UV that should be about $17 on ebay etc.

I would avoid eBay. There are counterfeits out there.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/hoya-pro1-digital-fake-filters-found-19275

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538761/photographers-warned-as-bogus-filter-scam-escalates

Go with direct sales from a big store (B&H, Adorama, etc, even avoiding Amazon's "sold by ____, fulfilled by Amazon").

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

Samsen — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:53:17 GMT

Yes that hurts to know there are so many counterfeit items out there.

Same goes for very cheap B+W you see out there.

Good link and if everyone who is a victim complain to seller, place of purchase such as ebay/paypal, there will be a level of confidence soon developed but I wonder how easy/difficult is to know if an item is counterfeit.

What I don't understand from the sample images without filter /. With real Hoya/ with counterfeit filter, is that why adding filter on both examples added the gathering light capability as when real filter is added, Diaphragm is shown a tad stopped down, when apparent exposure is identical to Without Filter image. You would expect any layer of extra media such as even a thin filter, should either not change the EV or at least reduce it be a small fraction that here has increased?!!

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

XYNOBIS — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:50:06 GMT

I buy Hoya filters only, Multicoated. A website called lenstip.com did an exhaustive tests of majority uv filters and Hoya filters came up on top and they don't cost as much as b+w filters. I did not notice any degradation of picture quality using them and they come easily on and off. Just make sure you buy a brand name filters since you spent so much money on your lens, don't cheap out on filters. Many cheap filters claim they are multicoated, but they're not.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

thorn — Thu, 08 May 2014 23:00:46 GMT

What do peopel think of the Canon ef Filters?

Just purchased the 100-400 usm lens.

Want to add a UV filter.

Know about Hoya and B&W, but why not a Canon filter for a Canon lens?

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

Vetteran — Fri, 09 May 2014 11:34:59 GMT

Digital camera do not need UV filters.

Polarizing, yes can be beneficial.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

ebiggs1 — Fri, 09 May 2014 14:05:02 GMT

"What do peopel think of the Canon ef Filters?"

Someone asked this and, IMHO, I use the UV or more correct Protective Filter made by the manufacturer of the lens. I.E., a Canon filter on a Canon lens, a Sigma filter on a Siggy and so forth. I started this routine in the 60's and I have yet to have someone say, "That's a great photo if only you hadn't used a UV filter."

I only buy mine from B&H or Adorama. You can get complete junk if you aren't careful.

Some say they aren't needed or required and maybe they are right. But...............think.

You spend a $1000 bucks upward and then don't think a $70 dollar filter that may help protect your front lens isn't a good idea? What planet are you on? Most seem to forget, filters are removable and if you think you need to, you can remove it!

But if nothing else they keep you from unnecessary cleaning of the delicate front element. Well worth the extra cost.

Again, IMHO, as always.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

Vetteran — Fri, 09 May 2014 14:34:00 GMT

Take a bit more care.

UV filters worked for film.

Any filter introduces two more air-to-glass surfaces.

Started photographing in the '50s.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

ebiggs1 — Fri, 09 May 2014 15:08:49 GMT

"Started photographing in the '50s."

We must be about the same age! I started in 1955 with an Argus C3. I wound up with three of them and still have them.

We'll just have to leave the choice of 'to filter' or 'not to filter' to our own preference.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

thorn — Fri, 09 May 2014 15:16:15 GMT

I purchased a Canon 77mm EF filter, but have not taken it out of the box.

I want to make sure that I'm getting / using an excellent filter.

The Canon filter was not cheap - $80 - so spending a bit more is not an issue.

I'm wondering why no manufacturer filters are reviewed. Same with Nikon, Sigma, etc..

I can't even find techinal specs on the canon filter - multicoated?, brass?

Thanks for the feedback.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

Vetteran — Fri, 09 May 2014 16:03:12 GMT

Keep a polarizing filter on if you must have a filter but UV is NOT needed for digital cameras.

A polarizer may be of benefit for some snaps

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

ebiggs1 — Fri, 09 May 2014 20:18:46 GMT

"I can't even find techinal specs on the canon filter ..."

Don't worry about it. Would Canon spend millions of dollars on lens development and than put crap glass in there filters. No they would not and neither would Nikon or Sigma.

The above 'ole boy' does have a point, sorta. Software like Photoshop, not digital, has largely made filters of any type a thing of the past.

The single filter that does remain useful are ND (netural density). Sometimes you can't stop down enough, right?

Another thing that the anti-filter crowd fails to take notice of, is how are the final photos going to be used? Anything that is meant for a web site, a filter is impossibile to tell if it was used or not. Any thing you intend to print at Walmart as 4x6's, it is simply not going to be a factor. Viewing on most monitor screens, not going to be able to tell.

Even, in fine art print it is going to be nearly impossibile to tell if that UV filter was on the lens or not

UV filters have no effect on digital. That is true.

However, the filter you bought may save your lens some day. Maybe not, but cheap insurance at any rate. But probably the best benefit from a filter is not cleaning the front element of your lens. Clean the filter instead!

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

thorn — Sun, 11 May 2014 02:02:18 GMT

Thank you ebiggs1. I'm along with your thoughts on the matter.
It is cheap peace of mind.
Still not sure about the Canon filter though.
Also thinking about a clear protection filter, instead of uv.
Thanks again.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

ebiggs1 — Sun, 11 May 2014 16:37:48 GMT

"Also thinking about a clear protection filter, instead of uv."

It really is a moot point. A UV filter has no effect on a digital sensor. Film is sensitive to the UV rays and the UV filter helped in this area. A digital camera is not as sensitive to them.

Also, bear in mind, you can remove the filter if you have an unlikely situation where it might be a issue. Most, if not all, of the anti-filter crowd, seem to forget the filter does come off. It does not become one with the lens when you first screw it on.

Sometimes a little common sense needs to be used.

Re: Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

TCampbell — Sun, 11 May 2014 22:19:20 GMT

As ebiggs points out... your camera has a built-in UV (and IR) filter already. These weren't so necessary with film because the sensitivity of film was entirely dependent on the type of film. But digital sensors are sensitive to light beyond what a human eye can see. To avoid allowing this light to skew the look of the final image, the camera has a filter which ramps up it's blocking as the light approaches either the UV or IR end of the spectrum (and yes, it actually blocks a lot of visible light ... that's on purpose. Human eyes are far more sensitive to greens than we are to blues or reds. The filters and sensors are designed to attempt to capture, as closely as possible, what a human eye would be able to see.

This means addinga UV filter to the front of your lens is a bit redundant and mostly thought of as a form of lens protection.

Be careful here... as the filter itself can also be a source of added reflections and flare. High end (expensive) filters tend to have good coatings to "reduce" (you can't really completely eliminate the issue) the problem. So if you're going to use a filter, keep this in mind.. you may want to test the camera in various situations with and without the filter to get a feel for how it alters the image. I do "own" filters for my lenses... but I do not necessarily leave them on the lenses.

A lens hood also offers a form of protection in that if you were going to bump into something with the business-end of your lens, it would hit the hood and not the glass.

B+W brand have a reputation for being top-notch thread-on filters. Hoya actually makes quite a range of filters... it's their Hoya "Pro1" series which are their high end filters -- and they do have a very good repuation with those filters.