Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

[PeterJ]

I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.

[M.ST]

I don´t use UV filters or other protective filters. I use only Pol-, ND- and GND-filters.

[infared]

I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.

Any particular brand?

[Zusje]

I use a Hoya HD, and I have noticed vignetting at 70mm on the 5Diii, just thought it was the lens on FF but perhaps it is the filter, will have to try it without and see

[pwp]

Thirty years experience has taught me to use UV/protective filters on every lens at all times. Over time filters have taken knocks that have prevented damage to front elements and to the filter thread which is surprisingly easily damaged. I replace the UV/protective filters every few years as they degrade with fine scratching from repeated cleaning with occasionally less than perfect lens-wipes like handkerchiefs, shirts, ties, a best-man's coat tails, tea-towels, tissues or whatever falls to hand when you need an instant fix. I don't worry too much when the shot of the day beckons...the filters are relatively cheap and user replaceable. Even the front element of a 300 f/2.8 is deliberately not an optical lens, it's relatively inexpensive to have replaced by Canon. So use your shirt if you have to.

Tests I have done using new, high quality filters show no discernible IQ degradation when compared to filterless. Optics scientists with too much time on their hands may have tools to prove a difference, but in the real-world of day to day image making, experience has proved to me that it's always best to wear your protection.

-PW

[bornshooter]

i only use uv filter on my lenses when it's raining or other risks for paid shoots i want the best that i can get from my glass and sticking a cheap piece of glass in front of my expensive lens is only going to do one thing...degrade the image quality whether it matters to you or not is your choice.

[neuroanatomist]

Even the front element of a 300 f/2.8 is deliberately not an optical lens, it's relatively inexpensive to have replaced by Canon.

That's true for the MkI supertele lenses, but not the MkII versions - the protective meniscus lens was removed from the design, presumably to save weight.

[RustyTheGeek]

Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.

I don't use them much myself ... but I know many do and swear by it. Is this because you feel there is no perceptible change whatsoever in high-performing lenses or you have made your peace with the potential trade off for possible protection? And, I did say "potential" trade-off. 

I want to protect my front element from cleaning, scratching, chemicals, abrasives, small meteorites from space or anything else from touching it. A UV filter already saved my 24L II once and will continue to use them.

I cannot distinguish IQ loss from the filter, B&ws are that good.

+1000 = Big Ditto!  I use high quality B&W and Hoya HD thin ring filters for all of my lenses.
Only difference is I will swap for a slightly cheaper Hoya filter on the 70-200 during swim meets due to splashing and I don't want the chlorine to damage a more expensive filter.  One gripe I have with a nice B&W CPL I have is that it requires a hammer, vise or machine shop to remove.

[sleepnever]

I've got a B+W multi-coat super thin something or another on my 24-70L v1 and I've shot with it and without it in bright sun and  other things. I cannot tell the difference in IQ, especially attached to my 5D3. $80 for a filter is way better than worrying about scratches on my front glass.
I realize this isn't the 70-200, but when I get mine (have rented 3x), it will get a filter too.

[expatinasia]

Thirty years experience has taught me to use UV/protective filters on every lens at all times. Over time filters have taken knocks that have prevented damage to front elements and to the filter thread which is surprisingly easily damaged.

Agreed. Mine never come off. One less thing to worry about if it does rain too as the lens are only "weather proof" with a filter.

[joshmurrah]

I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

[RLPhoto]

I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned.

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens. 

[tron]

YES! a Hoya UV HD. I would put a filter even on a cheaper lens (even my cheapest lens, a 50mm f/1.8 version 1 has one).

[dppaskewitz]

OK, you need to subtract one from the "yes" column.  I shouldn't have voted but couldn't resist.  Wonder if there are others who are screwing up your results?  I do have a filter virtually all the time on my 70-200 f4 L IS (don't remember which brand - will upgrade to B&H when I get around to it).

[joshmurrah]

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

Good call on point 1, I confirmed your findings.  I guess it was strongly on my mind since I am looking into the 16-35 II, and the reviews point out the moving/breathing/vented front element.  The 70-200 2.8's don't need a filter to be weatherproof.

on #3, a sharp impact really isn't what I'm thinking of, I'm thinking more of small scrapes, dust, speck of mud, fingerprint you left/didn't see, etched onto the glass over time, you name it... I'd rather the filter take that versus the front element... easier to clean, and sacrificial if need-be.l

I do agree that it's small potatoes either way, we're really making a mountain out of a mole-hill, especially if you're already using the lens hood all of the time.