UV filter or CP to protect lens?

[limvo05]

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,

LV

[Tronhard]

Considering the issues of protection, it seems to me that we are looking at the risks of mechanical impact and abrasion from external contact as the two most likely sources of damage to the lens. I don't see the two solutions of a lens hood and protective filter as being mutually exclusive.  I suspect that a lens hood will be helpful with the former, while the latter will be mitigated by the filter.

Speaking for myself, and based on the type of outdoor photography I normally do - scenic, wildlife and travel - I have used both a lens hood and a HIGH QUALITY UV0 or clear filter for the front element.  Let me confirm that I see no point in putting a crappy piece of glass in front of an expensive lens.  A lens hood is a good protection tool, but when not in its extended position - i.e. reversed on the bayonet when not being used, it has limited ability to protect the lens.  This is most likely to occur when travelling.

This was amply demonstrated when on one occasion as I travelled through an airport a security officer was handling my camera and dropped it (in its holster) about a foot onto a hard surface.  I was not able to examing the results until a while later and discovered that because the hood was on the lens it in the retracted position it did not protect the front, which took the force of the fall . The filter was shattered and bent but examination and investigation revealed no damage to the front element and no mis-alignment with the lens.  Replacing the filter was a much cheaper and more convenient solution than dealing with a damaged front element.   I have also had the protective filters abraded by sand, salt and other materials: again much cheaper to deal with the filter than the front element.

So, personally I am a fan of both solutions, depending on the situation and the risk.

[ebiggs1]

"...  investigation revealed no damage to the front element and no mis-alignment with the lens."

Your lucky day!  I hope you held them accountable?

[Tronhard]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  investigation revealed no damage to the front element and no mis-alignment with the lens."

Your lucky day!  I hope you held them accountable?

---

Actually not.  I was in a rush to get my flight and the local security guards were not too approachable - lots of AK47s.

[John_SD]

---

@Tronhard wrote:

Speaking for myself, and based on the type of outdoor photography I normally do - scenic, wildlife and travel - I have used both a lens hood and a HIGH QUALITY UV0 or clear filter for the front element.  

---

I do the same. A hood alone in the desert or tidepool conditions is near useless. My lens hood is 3rd party, but my UV filter is B+W. For me, if I had to choose one or the other, I would take the filter every time. YMMV.

[TCampbell]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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!

[limvo05]

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,

LV

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[TCampbell]

---

@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.