Hi, checking back in again on this discussion and I see a lot has been added.
First, I'm pleased to hear you're getting the EF 100-400mm II lens. That's really nice of that person to help you out like that. But,be aware the 100-400mm is considerably larger and more than double the weight of the 70-300mm you have. The lens you have is roughly 1.5 lb., while the 100-400mm II is about 3.5 lb. You will not be able to mount the camera directly to a tripod with this lens attached. If you were to do so, using the 1/4" threaded socket in the bottom of the camera, the weight of the 100-400m will very likely damage the lens mount of the camera and/or rip the mounting socket out of the bottom of the camera. You MUST use the tripod mounting ring on the lens itself and attach that to a tripod.
Assuming you have a quick release platform on the tripod (all gimbals and gimbal mounts use them), you will need a lens plate OR a replacement foot, like those offered by RRS, Hejnar Photo, Kirk Photo and a few others. Wimberley makes good products... I use several. However, rather than having two screws to loosen, one of which is the original OEM thumbscrew that tends to loosen very easily, I recommend spending an additional $18 to fully replace the tripod mounting foot of the lens. Hejnar Photo's costs $70, is longer than the Wimberley P-10 plate that costs $52, and the Hejnar foot is attached with a single, socket headed bolt that stays secure! (Put a little blue Locktite on it, if concerned. But mine has never loosened, unlike the OEM foot which repeatedly loosened and can't be tightened with a wrench.)
Regarding the Lenscoat for the 100-400mm II... I recommend you return it and get your money back. I'm a fan of Lenscoats, use them on a couple other lenses and have their pads on my tripod legs as well. But I was very disappointed in the Lenscoat for the 100-400mm. The problem is that much of the surface area of the 100-400mm is rings that rotate and the front barrel slides in and out as you zoom. As a result, most of the Lenscoat for this particular lens is basically unusable. The front barrel cover piece has to be removed most of the time, can only be used when the zoom is set to 400mm. The portions of the Lenscoat that cover the focus ring, zoom ring, zoom tensioning ring and tripod ring all really need to be glued onto the lens to be practical. The only part of the Lenscoat that I bought that's being used is the short piece that covers the hood. And even that's not ideal. It makes it hard to find the button that releases the hood so it can be set up or reversed for storage. It also covers the little door at the base of the hood that slides open to access a filter on the lens, such as a circular polarizer that rotates to adjust it. I've also used Hoodies on some lenses. If it's the correct size that's snug enough to stay in place, the padded neoprene Hoodie will be difficult to fit over the padded neoprene Lenscoat cover on the lens hood! Even more bothersome, I predict the Lenscoat will pull off the hood every time you remove the Hoodie, unless you glue the Lenscoat in place!
I agree that the Canon EF 100-400mm is a better choice than the 3rd party 100-400mm or 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. No need for 2nd thoughts about it. On an APS-C camera like you're using, 400mm is already a whole lot of telephoto lens! And if you need any more, the EF 100-400mm II works very well with a Canon EF 1.4X II or III teleconverter (I am not sure if it will be able to autofocus on an M50... does anyone know? There is "light lost" to any teleconverter... one stop with a 1.4X... so the f/5.6 at 400mm "becomes" 560mm f/8 when a 1.4X is added to the lens.)
Now let's talk filters. Honestly, I wouldn't consider using uncoated, lower quality filters like those Tiffen (Tiffen does make some higher quality, not knocking the brand). It makes no sense to put an uncoated, cheap filter in front of a $2000 lens! And there is no need for a "protection" filter on the 100-400mm lens. The hood that comes with it is nice and deep, doing a better job of protection than any thin piece of glass ever could. Those UV filters served a purpose with film (much of which was overly sensitive to UV light, causing color casts in images)... But there is almost no need for UV filters with digital cameras. There's UV filtration built into the cameras. On very rare occasions, a UV filter might help reduce distant haze in a digital shot... but it often can be corrected in post processing. .
I do have high quality, multi-coated UV "protection" filters for all my lenses. But they're stored in my bag until actually needed. I install these filters on my lenses when shooting at the beach, because of sand and salt air. I'd rather clean a filter than the front element of my lens! I also might install them if out shooting in a sandstorm, right next to motocross track or out at a paintball battle. Those things don't happen very often, so my UV filters really don't get very much use. They are probably on my lenses less than 1% or 2% of the time I'm shooting. If I didn't have them, I simply wouldn't shoot out in sandstorms and paintball battles!
A 2-stop neutral density filter might be useful for video, but is pretty weak for a lot of still photo uses. A 5 or 6-stop ND filter is more commonly used for still photography, to allow for longer exposures or larger apertures to be used in moderately strong daylight. A 6-stop or ND 1.8 filter "shifts" the exposure range nicely, to be able to choose the shutter speeds of several seconds for motion blur effects or to use very large lens apertures for shallow depth of field/strong background blur effects. This is a fairly specialized type of filter. Personally I occasionally use them for a landscape shot or a portrait. As such, I only buy them in sizes needed for the lenses I use for those purposes. I am sure I use ND less than 1% of the time, too.
A circular polarizer is by far the most useful filter with digital. It is the one filter that's difficult to duplicate in post-processing. A C-Pol can serve many purposes... reducing reflections, deepening the blue of the sky, making clouds "pop", increasing color saturation of foliage and more. They even have some uses for portraiture. There is some "light loss" when using a C-Pol. It ranges between approx. 1 and 2 stops, depending upon how much of the filter's effect has been dialed in. I use C-Pol far more often than any other type of filter. But even with them there are times to NOT use them, too. Sometimes a reflection is an important part of the image. And if trying to photograph a rainbow, a C-Pol will make it "disappear"! A C-Pol also serves no purpose when shooting directly a sunrise or sunset. The polarization effect is strongest when the filter is aligned 90 degrees from the strong light source, in this case the sun. The filter effect tapers off to nothing when it's 180 or 0 degrees from the light source. Pointing the camera at a light source is 0 degrees! All any C-Pol can do when shooting a sunrise or sunset is increase risk of flare artifacts in your images. Better quality, multi-coated filters minimize this, but it's still a possibility.
ANY filter you use should be high quality optical glass and multi-coated to minimize flare issues. Never compromise because a filter will effect every image shot through it... a lower quality filter can negate the effort to find and the money spent on a quality lens. This is especially true with multi-layer filters like C-Pol. Yes, some of the filters with these features can be quite expensive. In the past I would have recommended B+W F-Pro or XS-Pro circular polarizers for their excellent, German, Schott glass and multi-coatings. But they've recently gone up in price significantly. They also make high quality UV and ND filters, but the pricing on those has always been close to the same as every other manufacturers', who offer similar quality.
This got me shopping around. Eventually I came across K&F Concepts filters, made in China. They claimed to use the same Schott glass and have "nano" multi-coatings (which are usually 15, 16 or more layers.... more resistant to water, dust, finger oils and easier to clean}. They sounded good and I could by two for less than the price of one B+W filter! So I did and So far I'm impressed with the two K&F circular polarizer filters I got. They are the the Nano X which aren't their most expensive now, but were the "top of the line" last year. It appears they are now using Japanese optical glass in them, which I'm sure is fine. They were a little stiff turning at first, but that's better than loose and they seem to be getting a little easier.
In this K&F Nano-X series a 55mm C-Pol that fits your 11-22mm lens costs $36 bought direct from the Kent Faith store in Hong Kong. For sake of comparison, the same size B+W "Basic MRC" C-Pol costs $80 (8-layer multi-coating) and their top-of-the-line "Master" C=Pol filter is selling for $130 (16-layer nano multi-coating).
I see you're looking at some other lenses. I really don't think you need any more, for what you want to shoot. The 11-22mm and 15-46mm should be fine for landscape and general "walk around" purposes. Your 70-300mm will be fine for a lot of sports, but for really large fields like baseball the 100-400mm might be needed. That longer telephoto zoom will be great for birds and wildlife, too.
If it were me, I'd get C-Pol filters for the 11-22mm and 15-45mm lenses, then I'd get lens hoods for any that I don't already have (the 100-400mm is an L-series lens, so it will come with a hood). If you wanted neutral density filters for long exposure landscape shots, get them for the 11-22mm and 15-45mm lenses, as those are most likely the lenses you will use that way.
Here are links to the K&F filters I mentioned, if you are interested:
You'll find the 49mm size used by your 15-45mm there too, at even lower prices. But I would think the 11-22mm would be the priority lens to use with these filters.
Shooting sports and wildlife with the telephotos, you will not have time to be messing around with filters and can't often can't afford to lose the light they absorb, making higher ISOs or slower shutter speeds necessary.
Maybe later you might get quality UV filters for all your lenses. But I would make them pretty low priority. They just aren't necessary very often. The lens hoods will do a better job protecting your lenses, and can't possibly do any harm to image quality, in fact will reduce risk of flare issues. Plus, it's even more important to use a hood when using a filter... to protect the filter! So get the hoods first, prioritize the most important couple filters and get those, then add any other filters sometime later, one or two at a time.. .
***********
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR
