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

[TexasTea]

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!

[Skirball]

---

@Vetteran wrote:

Quite. Your picture will be degraded. Use a lens hood, lens cap and take a litttle care, it's not diifficult.

In 60 years I've not had a  problem because of the afore mentioned.

A Polarizing filter - now that could be beneficial.

But still I'm loathe to add another two air-to-lens surfaces.

---

It's an amusing stance.  Modern day zoom lenses have 15+ high precision curved elements with various coating and you're worried about a single flat piece of glass.

I haven't been shooting 60 years, nor do I lend you any credibility because you have.  But in the time I've been shooting and using filters I've never once had an image ruiined because of it  So I'll keep using them.

Regardless, I know I'm not going to convince you, nor you me.  It's a long tired discussion on these forums hence my earlier recommendations to just let it go.  However, telling someone that something they just bought is a waste of money is just low class.  I don't agree with a lot of equipment people choose to use and discuss on here, and I'll gladly give my recommendations when asked.  But once they buy it I'm not going to rub their nose in my opinion of it.

[Vetteran]

I did not say nor imply "ruined".

You chose to ignore the advice so you did waste your money.

It's not opinion about adding glass, it's physics.

Maybe you are not bothered by the difference or cannot see it.

As mentioned before, if you like a filter for protection,

then use something that can have an effect.

[TCampbell]

While it's true -- there are physics involved -- don't forget to use ALL the physics involved. A flat piece of glass technically isn't so flat. You get tiny amounts of diffraction which ever so slightly softens the image. If you stack up a lot of filters you can amplify the effect until you can visually see this happen.

BUT... if you use just ONE filter, and are not technically using every single pixel in your image (and very few people actually use every single pixel - you'd need a very large output format or an extreme crop) then even if a ray of light that was supposed to land on pixel #1 ended up landing on pixel #2 instead... you wouldn't notice this happening because by the time you've resampled the image to the true output size, there is no pixel #2... it got merged in the resampling process.

As long as the filters are of high quality and have anti-reflective coatings, you're not going to notice nor even measure degradation due to a filter being in place.

There are some exceptions in which not only would you notice... it would be readily apparent. But sometimes a filter is a good idea. Canon has some lenses for which the instructions indicate the use of a filter is required to complete the weather sealing (if weather sealing is what you need).

We use neutral density and circular polarizers all the time and yet nobody complains about how they've degraded the optical quality due to the physics involved (because frankly... due to the OTHER physics involved, they are tremendously helping the image in a very noticeable way.)

I tend to not use UV filters on my lenses most of the time... but I do actually OWN them. My EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM has a built-in UV filter on the front ... it is put there by Canon and it's not designed for easy removal (it would require some disassembly of the lens.

I never understood the religious debate over the use of filters or non-use of filters.

Today I was at Starbucks... I ordered a cafe latte with skim. The person behind me in line ordered regular drip coffee. Should I be outraged that they didn't choose the same item I chose and explain to them all the reasons that drip coffee isn't as good as espresso-based coffee? After all, 30% of the bean is water soluble and 2/3rds of that imparts desirable flavors while 1/3rd imparts undesirable flavors. With espresso extraction it's possible to get a better tasting coffee and I can prove it. Nobody should be allowed to order coffee any other way.

If this sounds like nonsense... this is sort of how I feel about the filter vs. non-filter argument.

[Vetteran]

Coffee example NOTHING like UV filter use.
UV filter is good for film and I did use one
in the old days but it is redundant on a digital camera.

[TCampbell]

Skirball knows there's a built-in UV filter in the camera. That wasn't really the point. It can be used as a protective glass filter. You can actually buy protective glass with no UV -- oddly those "clear glass" filters usually cost more (perhaps it has to do with the volume of UV vs. the volume of clear glass sold.)

[ebiggs1]

"In 60 years I've not had a  problem because of the afore mentioned."

The only thing this proves is you haven't had a problem for 60 years.  It proves nothing else or has anything to do with anybodies else's experience.

Sometimes 60 years people can learn alot for 6 years people and even 6 months people!

[Vetteran]

You are confused, who said anything about proof?

Just evidence.

Still does not alter the fact that a digital camera does not need a UV filter.

[ebiggs1]

“You are confused, ...”

Who said anything about the camera needing the filter? I thought the filter was for the lens?

“Just evidence.”

Yes, maybe but another poster had a different experience. Your “evidence” is not more important than his.

[Vetteran]

No, the lens does not need the filter - it's for the benefit, or otherwise, of what is behind it. 

[ebiggs1]

Again, my friend, you digress. Not if the filter was purchased for protection.  

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

“I've been through 4 UV filters, two of which unquestionably saved the lens ...”

Oh and, BTW, the coffee parable was great.