Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

[Radiating]

It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

[J.R.]

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys?

A fly in the ointment at best. You grumble a little ... perhaps vent out your frustration at CR over the extra few $$$ in addition to the lens, but eventually get on with it.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big,

If there are thinking that ... they must be idiots. Why should it be their business as to whether the buyer of the lens will be able to afford a new filter or not.

are photographers really that thickle?

As I mentioned above, probably they grumble at most and get on with it. Cost of filters while important, is unlikely to be a material factor in buying an improved lens - maybe for a hobbyist but not for a pro. 

People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

People on these boards complain about anything. It wouldn't have made a big difference if the new filter size was bigger than 82, a new filter would have been required anyway.

[neuroanatomist]

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

[dr croubie]

But you do read it a lot in reviews, things like "this lens uses the popular 77mm thread so you don't have to buy more filters" and "this lens uses an 86mm thread which is bigger than the one it replaces so you'll have to factor that into the pricetag".

I remember I was annoyed when I had my 15-85 with 72mm threads, and a 72mm CPL, then I bought the Samyang 35/1.4 which had 77mm threads. I was only using it on APS-C so I just used a step-down with no vignetting. I also used my 67mm 70-300L with step-up rings to the 72mm CPL, and all my other 52mm and 58mm lenses with a 58mm CPL. But eventually I got sick of that and just bought a B+W KSM 67mm, and found a second-hand Hoya HRT 77mm CPL too (and a 52mm KSM for $20 second-hand recently too).

Then I got lenses with 82mm and 86mm threads, like a wide-angle MF lens (which is fine putting it on aps-c, but then I wanted to use it on native MF). I had to make a decision the other day, buy an 86mm CPL (normal price $200 for a B+W) or a 95mm (a Heliopan second-hand on ebay $100), when I realistically will never have a 95mm lens (unless I win the lottery and buy the Zeiss 15mm). I just went the 95mm and a step-up ring, it's just future-proof so i'll never have to worry about sizes again.

I'm sure there will be the complaints when canon releases the next lens with 95mm threads from a few people. But honestly, even retail a good CPL is only $300 max in that size, compared to what, a $3000 lens? Noone else uses the coloured filters anymore, they were mostly only for B+W film (I use them for B+W film), and GNDs like Lee and Cokin X-Pro you just buy another $20 adapter ring to your kit. So maybe in the film days it might have made a big difference (like see the entire range of Takumars all use the 49mm thread except for the extreme speed/lengths) but these days not so much because it's only one new CPL that you have to worry about.

If you have to take a new CPL into account when you make your pricing decision, then do so, but I don't think it would stop canon from releasing the lens, it'll just make a few vocal whingers come out on the forums.

[RS2021]

I think 82mm is believable; 90+ mm not so much.  Canon lens designers would have not wandered that far even conceptually...Canon R&D is not an academic institution...some of these critical parameters would have been set early on, even before time was allocated for them to waste. 82mm will keep them in the 16-35II range and will not come as a surprise.

I generally shy away from UV filters, the only ones of concern would be CPL and some ND's.  And I already did all that with the 16-35II...and so have probably many others. So 82mm will not be a new hurdle. Canon for that reason will try and stay with 82 IMHO, if I were to hazard a guess. Some of my hard core friends use "filter systems" and would not view larger mm as a deal breaker.

Having said that, a heavy, expensive, 24-70mm range is not something I am keenly waiting on.

[Zlatko]

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

I never heard of it either.  And I'm not sure why the addition of IS would change the filter size so much. 

Filter size is not a significant factor in my purchase decision.  I think the 24-70 II is pretty fantastic just the way it is, even without the IS, so I'm not bothered if this story is true.

[Marsu42]

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

I have to say this would matter to me, for two reasons:

* compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens hoods, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.

* price: there are only so many good 82mm filters (the b+w mrc nd filters are just being released), and they are very expensive. So if I pay €80 for a 77mm filter, €180 for a 82mm one I really don't want to know what 95mm filters with the "early adopters" premium would cost.

But I know people that can afford a €3000+ 24-70/2.8IS will be able to get around these limitations, but I like that the cheaper Tamron & current Canon mk2 "only" have 82mm threads.

[RS2021]

* compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens caps, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.

You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.

[Marsu42]

You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.

Doh, typo - it is "hood", not "cap". Canon was smart enough that with a step-up adapter even 82mm filters fit into these lens hoods, I was surprised myself when I discovered it.

[EdB]

Since I don't use screw in filters this wouldn't matter to me.

[pwp]

The existing 24-70 f/2.8II is a pretty big lump of a thing, albeit a touch less of a brick than the lens it recently replaced.

Quite aside from initial purchase price and the requirement to buy another set of 95mm thread filters (usually UV/protective & CPL) just think about the sheer mass of a lens with such a big diameter in an already crowded bag, not to mention the bulky CPL case in the side pocket along with the mandatory 77mm & 82mm CPL's. Whew!

If & when this lens ships, I'll almost certainly get one as it will mesh in perfectly with the way I like to work, but I really did value the days when everything in the bag was a neat 77mm.

-PW

[wickidwombat]

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

[AprilForever]

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that.  Interesting information.  Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.

ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

Indeed! The sheer size would have totally made me want to get it!!! I love feeling beast when walking around with huge lenses... Mainly my 300 2.8, so... I need a huge walkaround lens to help!!!

[ChilledXpress]

Radiating is the same poster who said the 100L has harsh bokeh and SHOULD NEVER be used for portratits. Also stated that he owned a 24-70L f/4 and it was garbage. And now spouting off "facts" about 24-70L IS... which he probably owns ?!?!?!

"...are photographers really that thickle?" No Radiating, just you.

[RLPhoto]

If they put a filter that size, I'd just give me another reason to buy a tamron 24-70Vc.