Gear Talk > Canon General

Just Why

(1/3) > >>

Q8-MC:
Hello there,

I have just on question. Why the Super Telephoto lens doesn't have UV filter?

Drizzt321:
??

No lens (at least today) comes with a UV filter, you need to buy them yourselves. As for the super telephoto lenses, they do, it's just a filter that's dropped in close to the lens mount rather than all the way on the front of the lens like smaller lenses. I shudder to think of the cost for a filter that size.

neuroanatomist:
Just why do you think it needs one? 

dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.

If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace).  They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.

A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.

bseitz234:

--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on May 01, 2013, 04:31:03 PM ---Just why do you think it needs one? 

dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV light. If you really want one (maybe you're shooting film?), there's a drop-in holder for gelatin filters that comes with the lens, and a different one sold separately for screw-in 52mm filters.

If you mean a front filter for protection, the old superteles had a protective meniscus lens (thin, non-refracting, relatively cheap to replace).  They removed it from the new MkII versions to save weight. The hoods for those lenses are very deep and offer substantial protection.

A screw-on filter of that size would be incredibly difficult to produce. Compare 82mm filter costs to 58mm filters - the difference in materials cost is minimal, you're paying for the precision to make the two surfaces perfectly flat (which is harder than making curves surfaces) and parallel - that need for precision goes up exponentially with diameter, and a 600/4 would need a >150mm front filter.

--- End quote ---

Come on, Neuro, you don't want to throw B+W a $750 bone after paying $13k for that 600? ;-)

neuroanatomist:
Not without filter threads on the front of the lens...   :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version