Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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


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!



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

Rising Star

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


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.


Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?


Thank you everyone for the input!  Helps out tremendously.


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.

@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.


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

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?!!


I buy Hoya filters only, Multicoated. A website called 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.

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?

Enter for a chance to win