August 27, 2014, 11:05:57 AM

Poll

Did you use a UV filter on EF 70-200 f2.8L IS (vI or vII) during its last use?

Yes
No

Author Topic: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)  (Read 14244 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13924
    • View Profile
more glass less IQ

Thanks for that pithy explanation. I've always wondered why the 70-200/2.8L IS II with its 23 elements has so much less IQ than the 35/2 with only 7 elements. Now I know.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
more glass less IQ

That's my general bias as well, though I fully admit this is not based on any sound comparison. But personal perceptions matter. And I don't have filters on high end glass.

However, the point of this thread was, even if you hold such a perception that sticking another piece of glass on a precision engineered optical system is awful,  is there a point at which you balance the potential protection afforded by this added glass with the potential smidgen of trade off in IQ of a high quality lens? And I did say potential.

It appears a fair number do think it is justified.


« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 09:51:32 AM by Ray2021 »
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Trovador

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
    • Photography Portfolio
I never use a UV filter.  I agree with those who feel that adding a 100 piece of glass in front of a 2000 state of the art lens degrades IQ.  I understand the need to protect that investment though, I always use the hood which does protect a bit and am extremely careful.
Canon 6D+7D; 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 100-400L IS, 50 1.4, 100L 2.8 IS, Rokinon 8mm fisheye
www.ruddyflorentino.com

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
more glass less IQ

Thanks for that pithy explanation. I've always wondered why the 70-200/2.8L IS II with its 23 elements has so much less IQ than the 35/2 with only 7 elements. Now I know.

Perhaps... but one can still contend the caveat is the glass being added from B+W, Hoya, or tiffin or even high end pro versions of whatever brand was not part of the original optical design while the 20 odd elements or just 7 elements would have been carefully chosen to play well together.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 10:05:37 AM by Ray2021 »
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

bornshooter

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • Love L series glass
    • View Profile
    • my flickr
take from it only the point about UV filter please.

But how can you? If he doesn't use a lens that is listed in the article because it won't actually mount on any of his cameras, how can you trust any of it? I am not saying this is a for or against either position, I am just pointing out that it is unwise to put any trust in such a badly written piece of marketing rubbish. It is doubly annoying because there are some very good articles to be found in that site.
if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying.
ok i apologise uv filters can not harm image quality they better it what a lot of crap the only thing uv filters or protection filters will do is degrade image quality.

dafrank

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
    • davidfranklinphoto.com
No.

I never use filters on any of my lenses unless there is a very particular reason for it. Long gone are the days when my serious film shooting required carrying around: about 60 different color correction and ND 4" Kodak gel filters, a dozen or so glass ones and a dozen or so plastic graduated filters of different color and density spreads, filter holders, thin guage black gaffer tape to work on lenses the filter holders didn't work with, my color temperatrure meter, self-made reciprocity failure and artificial lighting type correction charts custom made and researched for every individual film stock that specified filtering at various shutter speeds and lighting conditions. Good riddance! Now, things are a lot simpler and my use of filters massively curtailed.

For instance, in cases where atmospheric haze or high altitude is a factor, I will use a very specifically tuned UV filter (one of two B&W's that were ridiculously expensive), or if there is some environmental factor such as industrial grit or outdoor sand or rain/snow/sleet blowing towards the lens, I will use the mildest UV I own just to protect it.

Of course, I do use good quality polarizing filters when it would genuinely help an image or correct a problem with an image, as well as color correction, ND or graduated filters on the very rare occasions when changing camera settings or PP wouldn't work as well.

The days of always using a filter on the lens to "filter" every shot, due to a general inadequacy of the lens color response are long gone. Pretty much all modern photo lenses sufficiently filter UV on their own, and are color biased so that they also don't need the slightly pink filtering afforded by the ubiquitous "skylight" filter.

As for physical protection, some photographers who constantly work in situations where rough treatment might lead to physical scratches, or other similar damage to the front element, would be wise to keep a weak UV filter on the lens merely to "sacrifice" it in the event of disaster, instead of the front lens element. Neither my work, nor my pleasure shooting, fall into that category, so my 70-200, and all the others in my kit, are usually used "bare-as#ed-naked."

Regards,
David
Outcomes are more important than intentions.
See my work at: http://www.davidfranklinphoto.com

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13924
    • View Profile
if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying

One article, by someone I've never heard of, clearly sponsored by Canon's marketing department.  On the other hand, Chuck Westfall, Canon's technical guru, advises using a UV or protection filter on all L series sealed lenses that accept front filters. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

bornshooter

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • Love L series glass
    • View Profile
    • my flickr
if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying

One article, by someone I've never heard of, clearly sponsored by Canon's marketing department.  On the other hand, Chuck Westfall, Canon's technical guru, advises using a UV or protection filter on all L series sealed lenses that accept front filters.
yeah canon state that yo need a uv filter to complete weather sealing.Either way who honestly really cares some buy there 1800 lens and want to protect it with filter i use a filter when raining and near sea spray etc,but any other time that is in the bag.

Jackson_Bill

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.

bornshooter

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • Love L series glass
    • View Profile
    • my flickr
FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.
what happened?i have been shooting for years and yet to damage a front element and im pretty hard on my gear.if the uv filter smashes theres a good chance your filter will damage your front element anyway so i guess you mean from scratches

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
I use filters sometimes for lens protection.  It doesn't affect IQ at noticeable levels if at all.  Have you honestly ever looked at a photo and gone, "oh shoot I shoulnd't have had that darn B+W UV filter on!"  And FWIW, nobody cares if you don't use filters.  Don't try to convince me to not use them because I don't care why you don't.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1306
    • View Profile
FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.
what happened?i have been shooting for years and yet to damage a front element and im pretty hard on my gear.if the uv filter smashes theres a good chance your filter will damage your front element anyway so i guess you mean from scratches

From Bill's avatar photo...I think your right...bear claw scratches :D
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

bornshooter

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • Love L series glass
    • View Profile
    • my flickr
I use filters sometimes for lens protection.  It doesn't affect IQ at noticeable levels if at all.  Have you honestly ever looked at a photo and gone, "oh shoot I shoulnd't have had that darn B+W UV filter on!"  And FWIW, nobody cares if you don't use filters.  Don't try to convince me to not use them because I don't care why you don't.
i use them in certain situations like i said and in scotland thats a lot lol

Shakarpix

  • Guest
I've always had UV's on for protection.

Chris Burch

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
    • CHRIS BURCH photography
And because I'm honestly afraid that you still might not get it, the whole line of discussion around cling wrap, starting from where the sardine sandwiches didn't turn green, is satire.

Yuk it up, these are the jokes.  ;)

I'm quite concerned that people thought you were actually serious. 
Canon 1DX, 5D Mark III, 5D MarkII