Need advice on protective filter and lens hood

[shorty1]

I am looking into purchasing a UV filter to protect my 18-135mm IS USM lens. Is the B+W 67mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter a good filter to use if I would like to keep the filter on all of the time? Would a standard lens cap fit on top of this?

Is the Canon EW-73D lens hood a good lens hood to use on top of the Canon 18-135mm lens?

[RobertTheFat · Accepted solution]

---

@shorty1 wrote:

I am looking into purchasing a UV filter to protect my 18-135mm IS USM lens. Is the B+W 67mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter a good filter to use if I would like to keep the filter on all of the time? Would a standard lens cap fit on top of this?

Is the Canon EW-73D lens hood a good lens hood to use on top of the Canon 18-135mm lens?

---

B+W filters are excellent but expensive.

Most in this forum would probably say that you don't need a protective filter, especially if you're using a lens hood. I think I fall into that category, though I did once try to nibble while covering an event that had a buffet table, and stuck the end of my lens into a dish of sour cream dip.

There's no such thing as a good or bad Canon hood for one of their lenses, just the right one or a wrong one. Always use the one they recommend, or it may interfere with the field of view. Lens hoods typically have very close tolerances in that respect. If you use a 3rd-party hood, make sure it's an exact replacement for the correct Canon hood.

[ScottyP]

UV filters are of very limited use.  The ads make it sound like the world is out to shatter your front lens element, and would do so but for a UV filter.  

Given the cost of a good one I don't think you'd really hit the cost-benefit sweet spot unless it was for an expensive ($1500+) lens.  I personally can't see any difference in colors, glare, etc., on lenses that have their own lens coatings.  Maybe on a cheap lens, but then the cost-benefit thing kicks in...

Lens hoods, however, are great.  People should use them more.

[ebiggs1]

"... it sound like the world is out to shatter your front lens element..."

It really isn't only the matter of not wanting the front element shattered, it is also keeping the sour cream dip off of it.  Probably the best benefit of a protective filter is, you clean it and not the rather fragile front element.

Filters of any kind, save for a very limited few, are largely obsolete.  They have become products of the past.

People that say filters are not needed do not regularly shoot little kids. The first place, must be irresistible, to stick their fingers is in the lens hood and right on to the front element.  They don't go to the beach.  Shoot in dusty conditions. The mist or rain, and on and on.  Would you rather clean your front element or a replaceable cheaper filter?  The truth of the matter is some "L" lenses require a protective filter to make them weather tight.  It isn't a choice if you want weather sealing.

A lens than had a filter on it tends to sell for more and quicker if you want to sell the lens later.

B+W filters are about as good as filters get. They aren't cheap and are probably better than you need for your lens.  But if you want the best, go for one.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... it sound like the world is out to shatter your front lens element..."

It really isn't only the matter of not wanting the front element shattered, it is also keeping the sour cream dip off of it.  Probably the best benefit of a protective filter is, you clean it and not the rather fragile front element.

Filters of any kind, save for a very limited few, are largely obsolete.  They have become products of the past.

People that say filters are not needed do not regularly shoot little kids. The first place, must be irresistible, to stick their fingers is in the lens hood and right on to the front element.  They don't go to the beach.  Shoot in dusty conditions. The mist or rain, and on and on.  Would you rather clean your front element or a replaceable cheaper filter?  The truth of the matter is some "L" lenses require a protective filter to make them weather tight.  It isn't a choice if you want weather sealing.

A lens than had a filter on it tends to sell for more and quicker if you want to sell the lens later.

B+W filters are about as good as filters get. They aren't cheap and are probably better than you need for your lens.  But if you want the best, go for one.

---

And if you want a protective filter get a 'Clear' one, not a UV. Your camera already has a built in UV filter over the sensor, so there is no need for one on the lens. There are some reports that UV filters can contribute to focus issues.B+W does make a Clear MRC or MRC-nano filter.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... it sound like the world is out to shatter your front lens element..."

It really isn't only the matter of not wanting the front element shattered, it is also keeping the sour cream dip off of it.  Probably the best benefit of a protective filter is, you clean it and not the rather fragile front element.

Filters of any kind, save for a very limited few, are largely obsolete.  They have become products of the past.

People that say filters are not needed do not regularly shoot little kids. The first place, must be irresistible, to stick their fingers is in the lens hood and right on to the front element.  They don't go to the beach.  Shoot in dusty conditions. The mist or rain, and on and on.  Would you rather clean your front element or a replaceable cheaper filter?  The truth of the matter is some "L" lenses require a protective filter to make them weather tight.  It isn't a choice if you want weather sealing.

A lens than had a filter on it tends to sell for more and quicker if you want to sell the lens later.

B+W filters are about as good as filters get. They aren't cheap and are probably better than you need for your lens.  But if you want the best, go for one.

---

And if you want a protective filter get a 'Clear' one, not a UV. Your camera already has a built in UV filter over the sensor, so there is no need for one on the lens. There are some reports that UV filters can contribute to focus issues.B+W does make a Clear MRC or MRC-nano filter.

---

Oddly, a "clear" filter may cost more than a UV filter. Most glass does a good job of filtering out UV. That's why photochromic sunglasses don't work very well in an automobile and why, now that most cars are air-conditioned, drivers' sunburned arms have become a thing of the past.

[Waddizzle]

"A lens [that has] a filter on it tends to sell for more and quicker if you want to sell the lens later." 

Quite true!  I got a quote on a lens, and the filter added 10% to the quoted value.  Not only did the lens have a filter, but the front of the lens was in perfect condition.  I had installed the filter when the lens was new, and never once removed it.

I use protective filters on all of my lenses.  I think the cost of the B&W filters are competitive.  The bargain filters that I have bought seem to have caused the occasional focusing issues and hazing.  I have never had that experience with B&W "Nano" filters.

[ebiggs1]

"I use protective filters on all of my lenses."

+1 

[shorty1]

Which protective  filter are you using?

[TTMartin]

---

@shorty1 wrote:

Which protective  filter are you using?

---

I just ordered a B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for my new EF 100-400 L IS II. It is available in a variety of sizes.

I treat a protective filter as an extra lens cap. I remove it in environments where it is not need and leave it on at places where it is (i.e. the beach).