Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you put UV filter on your L lens? If so which brand ?

Go to last post
njralston said:
While walking down a paved road to get in front of a moving elk herd, I took a misstep off the pavement with my camera on a tripod over my shoulder and fell down a 10 foot embankment. The plastic (Canon) lens hood shattered and the filter took a direct hit.
Click to expand...
Wow! Sounds like you took quite a tumble! I'm glad you were OK. You may want to consider this before you leave the house next time:





The lens is repairable/replaceable relatively inexpensively compared to your body and you never know when something might happen.
njralston said:
I'd rather replace a $70 dollar filter than a $2500 lens.
Click to expand...
That erroneously assumes that a thin, fragile piece of glass is going to save your heavy lens. Very unlikely. The body armor looks like it might actually work.

And don't forget to wear your helmet. No need to go over kill on the helmet, a simple bicycle or climbing helmet should be adequate for most photographic pursuits:





Mohawk is optional but highly recommended because you never know when a motorist might not see you. Also adds a small cushioning effect in case an errant board falls on your head.

--
Mike Mullen
 
Gravi said:
I always keep the lens hoods on. That also gives protection, without degrading the IQ.
Click to expand...
I am not a big fan of UV filters but you cannot always keep a hood on, for a normal use anyway. On the other hand, you can keep a filter on for years without removing it.
 
andyus08 said:
Hi,

I have never put any UV filter on my lens except circular polarizer. I was just wondering if anyone put UV filter on lens, especially L lens.?
Click to expand...
Some people do.
andyus08 said:
Does it reduce the image quality much?
Click to expand...
It may or it may not.
andyus08 said:
I am thinking of putting UV filter on my lenses just for protection and which brand do you recommend?
Click to expand...
B+W Gets good reviews.
andyus08 said:
thanks.
Click to expand...
No problem.
--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c If you find any extra letters, please place them here for future use...
 
Just step back and analyze your statement for a moment...

You're ok with lenses with the Canon brand on them.

But when there's a filter with Canon on it, it must be substandard in some way?

That's just plain crazy.

Read the Canon Lenswork manual some time, and educate yourself.

http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_6_EN.pdf

On my super Teles - like the 300mm f2.8L and 600mm f4L glass - the slot-in filters I can use are Canon filters



Are they 'non pro' as well then?

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad
 
Chris Dodkin said:
You're ok with lenses with the Canon brand on them.
Click to expand...
Not only am I "OK" with Canon lenses, I prefer them - IMO, Canon has the best lens technology.
Member said:
But when there's a filter with Canon on it, it must be substandard in some way?
Click to expand...
No, I use the very expensive Canon PL-C 52 polarizing filter in my 300mm f/2.8 IS (no one makes an alternative to the $249 Canon filter) but the standard screw on filters are Canon only in name (made by Tiffen) and are widely recognized to be inferior to top brands. Inferior in terms of surface flatness and coatings.

I know of no pros who use them. If you want a mediocre filter there is no reason to pay Canon prices, just buy the equivalent Tiffen - much cheaper. But if you like the Canon name on your filters you are more than welcome to pay the high Canon prices for a mass produced Tiffen filter with the Canon name on them.

But it begs the question, just who is crazy?

--
Mike Mullen
 
--
-Joe
 
Wow, people take this way too serious. Of course everyone has their own experiences and opinions, that's how it should be.

My experience, I used to have filters on my lenses many years ago. Once it actually may have saved a 70-200 L lens when I slipped on ice and the lens in the bag smacked onto the icy ground. I heard some rattling, looked at the lens, and the filter was in pieces. Could have been the front element, who knows. However, I have not used filters recently. I just bought a Canon 50 1.4 and purchased a highly recommended UV filter because everyone said the combo works well for them. I was shooting some pictures for friends and when checking the focus, I thought they were kind of soft. After some more shots, I took the filter off, and could see a difference in sharpness right there on the camera display. Needless to say, that filter is staying off. Sure, if you are in adverse conditions, and you have a filter use it.

My believe though is that such damages occur relatively seldom (unless you are a pro using your equipment every day outdoors), and I'm willing to get better quality pictures and on occasion repair a lens if I have to in case something happens. I always use my lens shades, they are great protection.
 
Ah, I get it, so Canon make pro filters, apart from the one's you think they don't make, which are not pro.

So they are a pro filter range, but then they're not a pro filter range...

I use the slot-in Canon CPL for the 300 and 600mm lenses, and also the 77mm CPL for my L series zooms, which is definitely a pro filter, and on par with the best out there.

Chuck Westfall (Technical Advisor/Professional Engineering & Solutions Division at Canon U.S.A., Inc.) talked about Canon filters on Rob Galbraith's forum a few years ago.

He didn't exactly admit that they were re-branded Tiffen filters, but he did say there was a significant difference in quality between the Canon-branded filters sold by Canon in North America compared to the Canon-branded filters made in Japan.

And that was indicated by their difference in price. His discussion did strongly convey the suggestion that one could do better than to buy Canon filters made in North America - but not those made in Japan.

So sweeping statements around the range being non-pro would be, sweeping...

Yet not at all accurate.

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad
 
Chris Dodkin said:
Ah, I get it, so Canon make pro filters, apart from the one's you think they don't make, which are not pro.

So they are a pro filter range, but then they're not a pro filter range...
Click to expand...
Whatever floats your boat.

--
Mike Mullen
 
Chris Dodkin said:
By all means pass on the camera maker's explicit instructions to use a protective filter.

But don't BS people that it doesn't have consequences

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad
Click to expand...
LOL, Canon only says that kind of BS to get you to BUY CANON protective filters, that's all. And this is coming from a dude that has B+W UV filters on all his lenses. (unfortunately I cannot for now escape my demons)
--
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
We make a stand now, or there will be nobody left to go to the chopper..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Chris Dodkin said:
Every day...
Click to expand...
You're answering for yourself, not most users.
Member said:
I don't live in a clean room, so the environment around me is full of dust - it's call real life.
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid, dust?? How difficult it must be to use a blower brush to get some dust off the surface of a lens. I'm not sure I understand why it's any easier to get dust off of a filter than the front of a lens however.
Member said:
By all means pass on the camera maker's explicit instructions to use a protective filter.

But don't BS people that it doesn't have consequences
Click to expand...
And don't try to scare people into using one when it's not necessary for many users in most situations.
 
I do not use UV filters on any of my lenses anymore since they are firstly quite expensive for good ones, usually harder to clean than the lens element, and they do not help your IQ at all.

I recently had a stuck UV filter on an old film lens, and they only way to get it off was to smash the glass and rip it off that way. A smashed filter is very dangerous for the front element, the glass is pressed hard into the metal ring and is under tension. While taking the glass out it flew everywhere, quite dangerous. It can also go back and easily cut your front element.

Filters can smash quite easily becuase they are glass pressed into a metal ring so there is not much flexibility. Alot of the time people have dropped a lens and it smashed the front filter, and think they just saved the front element from smashing. In the majority of cases it would have done nothing to the front element as the filter will shatter much easier.

long story short, if you want protection, use the lens cap when not taking pictures, and use a hood.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/
 
Chris Dodkin said:
Ah, I get it, so Canon make pro filters, apart from the one's you think they don't make, which are not pro.

So they are a pro filter range, but then they're not a pro filter range...

I use the slot-in Canon CPL for the 300 and 600mm lenses, and also the 77mm CPL for my L series zooms, which is definitely a pro filter, and on par with the best out there.

Chuck Westfall (Technical Advisor/Professional Engineering & Solutions Division at Canon U.S.A., Inc.) talked about Canon filters on Rob Galbraith's forum a few years ago.

He didn't exactly admit that they were re-branded Tiffen filters, but he did say there was a significant difference in quality between the Canon-branded filters sold by Canon in North America compared to the Canon-branded filters made in Japan.

And that was indicated by their difference in price. His discussion did strongly convey the suggestion that one could do better than to buy Canon filters made in North America - but not those made in Japan.
Click to expand...
That agrees well with observations that Canon filters are not well coated and flare more than e.g. Hoya HMC or other multicoated filters.
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/Brand%20Grade.htm
http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/p897234436/

Both from my compilation at
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Filters
Member said:
So sweeping statements around the range being non-pro would be, sweeping...

Yet not at all accurate.

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad
Click to expand...
--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
mmullen said:
Mr Justice Cocklecarrot said:
Be sure to note that 'most expensive' does not equal 'best' as far as filters go:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
Click to expand...
True, and out of 20 filters tested for cost to performance, the USA made Tiffen took last place! See here:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.24-article-UV_filters_test_Tiffen_72mm_UV.html

Makes you wonder how Canon chose Tiffen as their filter manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe the glass is good, but they are just not multicoated.

Anyway, if you look at the Tiffen web site, it looks like they make a lot of big filters also for the movie industry, they seem to be a "respected" company.

Anyway, that explains of course why in movies in night scenes, you always have the car headlights reflected all over the place :-)

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top