RF 50mm f1.2 users (and probably EF version as well), do you use a protective filter on it?

Master619 wrote:

Let me start off by saying that I'm typically not a filter guy. I don't use any filters on any of my lens, unless it's for special purposes like ND and polarizers (and very rarely as well). I followed the (somewhat common) mindset that if I've paid a good amount of money for top-notch glass, I don't want to put some cheap glass in front of it. I've rocked multiple big, heavy, large front lenses like the Sony 100-400, various 70-200 including the IS ii, 85mm f1.2,... with just their hoods and no filter needed.

But now that I just got the RF 50mm f1.2, the front moving parts of it got me a bit concerned (and I noticed the previous EF version also had that). So for you guys who have been using them for a long time, do you feel the need to have a filter to prevent dust from getting into the inside of the lens? Is the weather seal reliable? Are some blower squeezes at the end of each session enough? If you use a filter, which one did you go with? Did it affect the IQ in any noticeable way?

Any input is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!

I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?

Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.

In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.

People worry way too much about something happening to the front of their lenses when in fact it is actually very hard to do something to a lens that actually produces a noticeable effect on the image recorded. In my case of the lent lens I was never able to detect any effect on the images taken with that lens and it actually had a chunk of glass missing from the front element.

The most likely way to do something to a lens that would actually impact the images taken with it is by being aggressive and zealous in cleaning the front lens element. Enough small scratches will eventually have an effect, but a single mark, scratch, chip will generally not be detectable.

Save your filter money and go buy something that actually helps you with your photography.

Master619 wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?

Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.

In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.

People worry way too much about something happening to the front of their lenses when in fact it is actually very hard to do something to a lens that actually produces a noticeable effect on the image recorded. In my case of the lent lens I was never able to detect any effect on the images taken with that lens and it actually had a chunk of glass missing from the front element.

The most likely way to do something to a lens that would actually impact the images taken with it is by being aggressive and zealous in cleaning the front lens element. Enough small scratches will eventually have an effect, but a single mark, scratch, chip will generally not be detectable.

Save your filter money and go buy something that actually helps you with your photography.

No offense, what you said totally makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly 100%. Just that it feels like a generic response to "should I use filters to protect my lens's front element from scratches". In this case I'm asking specifically for protection from tiny dust entering the crack of the lens (this 50 1.2 has an open barrel that provides access to the exposed moving front element). For most lenses where the front element stays in place I have no such worries. Thanks anyway.

I think if the design were such a big problem Canon would have done something about it. For me I'm just gonna stick to my normal practice which is keep the lens hood on for impact protection and when not using the lens put the lens cap on it.

If you shoot in harsh conditions a filter may make sense for you. I really would not worry too much about a little dust though.

A small amount of dust inside a lens will not have any noticeable effect and most lenses have some inside if you look close enough. I've never had enough dust inside any lens I've owned for it to be a real world problem.

Master619 wrote:

In this case I'm asking specifically for protection from tiny dust entering the crack of the lens (this 50 1.2 has an open barrel that provides access to the exposed moving front element). For most lenses where the front element stays in place I have no such worries. Thanks anyway.

From Canon's literature:

"For reliable performance even when weather conditions get difficult, the RF 50mm F1.2 L USM lens features dust- and water-resistant construction in the lens mount, switch panel and all rings."

Canon specifically says it is dust sealed, so I would take them at their word.

jwilliams wrote:

I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?

The "possible effect" here is protecting the lens. Nobody buys a protective filter to improve image quality.

Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.

And also sometimes for protection. Are you going to pretend that a large number of photographers don't use protective filters or that they don't exist?

In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.

One could argue the other lesson is that maybe a filter would have helped protect that lens.

People worry way too much about something happening to the front of their lenses when in fact it is actually very hard to do something to a lens that actually produces a noticeable effect on the image recorded. In my case of the lent lens I was never able to detect any effect on the images taken with that lens and it actually had a chunk of glass missing from the front element.

So a  chip or scratch in the front element is nothing to worry about, but high grade multi-coated optical glass in a filter is going to destroy your image quality?

I agree with you about the scratches, but you can't wave away those while acting like you can't  let anything come between you and a 4th decimal of optical perfection.

The most likely way to do something to a lens that would actually impact the images taken with it is by being aggressive and zealous in cleaning the front lens element. Enough small scratches will eventually have an effect, but a single mark, scratch, chip will generally not be detectable.

And one way to keep from ever touching that front element is to use a filter and then you are only cleaning an easily swappable filter.

Save your filter money and go buy something that actually helps you with your photography.

A little filter money might save an expensive lens. As I said earlier, nobody will argue it helps with photography.   Do we tell people to skip lens caps because it doesn't improve photography?

tkbslc wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?

The "possible effect" here is protecting the lens. Nobody buys a protective filter to improve image quality.

Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.

And also sometimes for protection. Are you going to pretend that a large number of photographers don't use protective filters or that they don't exist?

Without a doubt more money is wasted on these devices than anything else in the photography world. 99.99% of people who buy these things will never get any benefit from them.

In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.

One could argue the other lesson is that maybe a filter would have helped protect that lens.

I've probably owned 50 or more lenses over the years. A good 'protective' filter for these would be in the $50 -100 range. I'd spend $2,500 - $5,000 to save that one lens from a chip. Not such a good investment. The lens was 100% usable and I probably lost an extra $50 when I sold it because of the chip, so barely enough to buy one single filter.

The lesson to be learned from that event is not to let others borrow your camera gear.  I'd be 0 for 50 in the damaged lens department if not for trying to help some else out.

People worry way too much about something happening to the front of their lenses when in fact it is actually very hard to do something to a lens that actually produces a noticeable effect on the image recorded. In my case of the lent lens I was never able to detect any effect on the images taken with that lens and it actually had a chunk of glass missing from the front element.

So a chip or scratch in the front element is nothing to worry about, but high grade multi-coated optical glass in a filter is going to destroy your image quality?

I agree with you about the scratches, but you can't wave away those while acting like you can't let anything come between you and a 4th decimal of optical perfection.

The most likely way to do something to a lens that would actually impact the images taken with it is by being aggressive and zealous in cleaning the front lens element. Enough small scratches will eventually have an effect, but a single mark, scratch, chip will generally not be detectable.

And one way to keep from ever touching that front element is to use a filter and then you are only cleaning an easily swappable filter.

Save your filter money and go buy something that actually helps you with your photography.

A little filter money might save an expensive lens. As I said earlier, nobody will argue it helps with photography. Do we tell people to skip lens caps because it doesn't improve photography?

That's why the manufacturers include the lens cap, but not a protective filter when purchased. Maybe the lens manufacturers are onto something!

jwilliams wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

I never use a protective filter on any lens. Ever. In fact my 50 1.2 is the last lens I'd ever do that to if somehow I was forced to start the practice. It has the best optics of any lens I have ever owned. Why would I want to screw that up by adding something else to the front of it that the only possible effect would be to degrade the image quality of such a fine lens?

The "possible effect" here is protecting the lens. Nobody buys a protective filter to improve image quality.

Lens hoods and lens caps are for protection. Filters are for changing the way the image is recorded.

And also sometimes for protection. Are you going to pretend that a large number of photographers don't use protective filters or that they don't exist?

Without a doubt more money is wasted on these devices than anything else in the photography world. 99.99% of people who buy these things will never get any benefit from them.

Same could be said for any kind of insurance.

In 30+ years of photography I've never used any sort of protective filter. I've never managed to damage any lens, but once did load a camera/lens to someone and it came back with a chip in the front lens element. Lesson learned, don't lend your camera gear out to others.

One could argue the other lesson is that maybe a filter would have helped protect that lens.

I've probably owned 50 or more lenses over the years. A good 'protective' filter for these would be in the $50 -100 range. I'd spend $2,500 - $5,000 to save that one lens from a chip. Not such a good investment. The lens was 100% usable and I probably lost an extra $50 when I sold it because of the chip, so barely enough to buy one single filter.

Nobody implied you need to get a filter for every lens.  Why bother putting a $70 filter on a $300 lens, for example?  That's too expensive of an insurance plan.   I never bother with cheap lenses, as the risk math doesn't work out.

But the 50L is a $2300 lens.  A good filter to protect that investment only adds 3% to the cost.  That's a whole different scenario.

Austin7642 wrote:

Master619 wrote:

Let me start off by saying that I'm typically not a filter guy. I don't use any filters on any of my lens, unless it's for special purposes like ND and polarizers (and very rarely as well). I followed the (somewhat common) mindset that if I've paid a good amount of money for top-notch glass, I don't want to put some cheap glass in front of it. I've rocked multiple big, heavy, large front lenses like the Sony 100-400, various 70-200 including the IS ii, 85mm f1.2,... with just their hoods and no filter needed.

But now that I just got the RF 50mm f1.2, the front moving parts of it got me a bit concerned (and I noticed the previous EF version also had that). So for you guys who have been using them for a long time, do you feel the need to have a filter to prevent dust from getting into the inside of the lens? Is the weather seal reliable? Are some blower squeezes at the end of each session enough? If you use a filter, which one did you go with? Did it affect the IQ in any noticeable way?

Any input is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!

Yes, because that's the only way to weather seal the lens fully.

Do you have any documentation to support this for the 50L or newer RF lenses?  I've seen that specifically mentioned by Canon on a few older L lenses, but not for any of the newer ones.

GrunRad wrote:

From the lens manual:

● This lens needs to have Canon filters attached to
achieve its dust-resistance and water-resistance
performance.

I gather this to mean that the RF 50mm/1.2 requires a filter in order to be "dust-/water-resistant".

That's why I attached a filter (B+W MRC nano) - admittedly only when using the lens outdoors.

Good information, thanks.

I'm more concerned about dust getting into the gap around the extruding front element. But putting a filter brings another question, where does the air go when the front element extrudes? Will the air get suck into the lens?

I always say there are two kinds of photographers: photographers who don’t use protective filters and photographers who have been sh!t on by a bird.

Best thing about a nano-coated filter like the B+W clear is mist/rain/dust/birdsh!t can be cleaned off with a t-shirt. The filterless crowd gotta get their Zeiss buttwipes and microfiber cloths out and have a major production.