Traveling to India: should I get a filter for my Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8 Mk II lens?

I don't want to ruin my expensive piece of glass on my trip - where it can get dusty.

At the same time, I don't want the image quality to suffer. I was looking at this filter: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR15LS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

This is 070 coating as opposed to 010. The 010 introduces a blueish hue, I am told while the 070 doesn't.

What do you guys think?

Thanks as always!

JH

About 70% of the people on these forums will tell you no, it degrades the image. 30% will say good idea. I'm in the latter group, and use protective filters all the time. Good quality ones. The insurance is worth an infinitesimal drop in quality, usually too small to detect.

You can always take the filter off if you have one.

B+W 007M filter is fine(either one Nano* or regular) and with lens hood it should be good enough for front lens protection, make sure to watch where you are going, and have a fun and safe trip.

*Easier to clean.

While I ordinarily avoid filters religiously, this B+W filter would be an excellent choice to protect that massive 82mm front element on the 24-70 f/2.8L II. I always use the lens hood, of course, but the hood is rather shallow with this lens and this filter would be a good choice if you are getting situations involving rain, dust or beach sand.

Spent a week in delhi 4 years ago.
I felt that my camera gear became dirty all days. It may sound strange but the dirt looked like "soot". Also the clothing became dirty by that "soot". It was during winter and it was suprisingly cold. Maybe the soot in the air came from heating households by coal or something.

I had to clean the front element of my 24-105 often.

Some places are very crowded. Not crowded like in europe or usa, but crowded in an asian way.

I would not use the front element of an expensive lens without a filter in such conditions.

Greets, mike

Thank you everyone, I just bought the filter. 71$ after tax, but compared to 1550$ lens, it's nothing! I appreciate your comments in helping me make a decision.

JohnHavoc wrote:

Thank you everyone, I just bought the filter. 71$ after tax, but compared to 1550$ lens, it's nothing! I appreciate your comments in helping me make a decision.

$1550! Dang, I bought mine for $2200. Grump.

hotdog321 wrote:

JohnHavoc wrote:

Thank you everyone, I just bought the filter. 71$ after tax, but compared to 1550$ lens, it's nothing! I appreciate your comments in helping me make a decision.

$1550! Dang, I bought mine for $2200. Grump.

That was a canonpricewatch street price deal!

I have always used a protection filter and I have been to India many times with 24-70/28 mkI and 5DII. As some pointed out this is more a religious discussion

Images to support my point about the conditions:

Have a good trip. Its one of my favourite places to visit for photographing people.

JohnHavoc wrote:

I don't want to ruin my expensive piece of glass on my trip - where it can get dusty.

At the same time, I don't want the image quality to suffer. I was looking at this filter: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR15LS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

This is 070 coating as opposed to 010. The 010 introduces a blueish hue, I am told while the 070 doesn't.

What do you guys think?

Thanks as always!

JH

If you have not looked at "Ice" filters. take a look. I used to purchase B+W but recently I have been using Ice. Ice filters are equally great in quality and build type.

JohnHavoc wrote:

I don't want to ruin my expensive piece of glass on my trip - where it can get dusty.

At the same time, I don't want the image quality to suffer. I was looking at this filter: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR15LS/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

This is 070 coating as opposed to 010. The 010 introduces a blueish hue, I am told while the 070 doesn't.

What do you guys think?

Thanks as always!

JH

Whereas I don't ordinary recommend filters for one's lenses, I think this is a noteworthy exception.  India is one of the filthiest places out there.  I don't mean just dirty, I mean filthy in every possible way you can imagine and in many ways you can't possibly imagine.  There are all kinds of things and people and stuff happening there that's either filthy or spreads the filth or both.  You never know what you're going to encounter.

I don't want to rain on your parade and tell you shouldn't go, but definitely put a filter on your lens and get a few to spare.  You'll need them.

Good luck

on 24-70L II and I use protective filters most of the time.  I don't when shooting at night or when I am using other filters like NDs or CPL.  I damaged the coasting on the lens from the few times I cleaned it in the field,  probably a foreign object on rag or tee shirt.  anyhow I recommend to always use a clear filter unless you have a reason to take it off.

JohnHavoc wrote:

Thank you everyone, I just bought the filter. 71$ after tax, but compared to 1550$ lens, it's nothing! I appreciate your comments in helping me make a decision.

But that's the wrong comparison.

The filter does not protect the whole lens.  At most it protects the front element.  Chip the front element of a $2,000 lens with an ice pick, and it's likely only a $350 repair.

Thus you have spent $71 in order to reduce the chance of a $350 repair.

Whether or not this makes financial sense depends on how likely you would be to damage the front element without a filter, and how good the filter is at protecting the lens.

Most people who go bare do not damage their front elements.  Filters are only effective in protecting against a limited number of hazards.  If you do the math, for most people a protective filter does not make financial sense.

Macro guy wrote:

...

Whereas I don't ordinary recommend filters for one's lenses, I think this is a noteworthy exception. India is one of the filthiest places out there. I don't mean just dirty, I mean filthy in every possible way you can imagine and in many ways you can't possibly imagine. There are all kinds of things and people and stuff happening there that's either filthy or spreads the filth or both. You never know what you're going to encounter.

I don't want to rain on your parade and tell you shouldn't go, but definitely put a filter on your lens and get a few to spare. You'll need them.

Good luck

The real danger to a lens, is not dirt on the front element (which can easily be cleaned), but dirt getting into the interior of the lens.

Dirt will not pass through the solid front element into your lens.  The real danger is dirt entering the lens in openings under zoom and focus rings.

A filter provides almost no protection against dust and dirt.

Exception:  there are a small handful of lenses that do require a sealed filter in order to complete the weather sealing of the lens.  If you are shooting with one of these few lenses, then a filter can improve weather sealing.

ed rader wrote:

on 24-70L II and I use protective filters most of the time. I don't when shooting at night or when I am using other filters like NDs or CPL. I damaged the coasting on the lens from the few times I cleaned it in the field, probably a foreign object on rag or tee shirt. anyhow I recommend to always use a clear filter unless you have a reason to take it off.

You may want to join Canon Professional Services (CPS).  You will get discounts and faster turn around on your repairs.