December 03, 2016, 09:02:00 AM

Author Topic: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?  (Read 19670 times)

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1687
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2014, 02:27:51 AM »
Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon >:() after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG :). Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does :) and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results :) ). It happens, please stop denying that.

I think we are both saying the same thing- it is subjective, and differs from case to case.

I said in MY case it doesn't significantly affect the IQ.

I am sure there are people whose pictures do get affected. And it totally makes sense for them to not use filters themselves, or at least not all the time.However, preaching everyone else not to use it is a bit presumptuous.

Again, in MY case there isn't usually a concern about mud, water, etc. to a huge degree. But then again- few days back I was on the Maid of the Mist, shooting with my 24-70II inside the Optech Rainsleeve (which is great for protecting your camera but not your lens, by the way). I was feeling a lot better with a filter in front even though the 24-70 is water-resistant.

People obsess over little things and start these long discussions, and that is fine until it isn't and there are personal attacks and insults. You mention washing your microfiber cloth- you should see a thread that discusses whether or not you should wash it with regular laundry  :o
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2014, 02:27:51 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2014, 09:36:21 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
CPS Score: 111 points

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3789
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2014, 09:52:34 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2014, 10:12:01 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.
CPS Score: 111 points

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5276
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2014, 10:19:30 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.
ML: A7R II & A7s -- FE35f1.4 -- FE35f2.8 -- FE55 -- FE85GM -- FE2470GM -- FE70200GM
DSLR: 1Dx + 200L f2 IS  -- sadly replaced this combo with a7s + 70200GM

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2014, 10:27:52 AM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.
That's correct, but they are slightly more expensive than the UV ones (supply & demand...), and I have tried both but have never noticed the difference when I've compared them side-by-side.  And yes, I do realize the UV coating isn't necessary in the digital era...
CPS Score: 111 points

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1687
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2014, 10:56:22 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2014, 10:56:22 AM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5276
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2014, 11:02:28 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 11:12:37 AM by Dylan777 »
ML: A7R II & A7s -- FE35f1.4 -- FE35f2.8 -- FE55 -- FE85GM -- FE2470GM -- FE70200GM
DSLR: 1Dx + 200L f2 IS  -- sadly replaced this combo with a7s + 70200GM

yoms

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2014, 11:09:35 AM »
I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

tomscott

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2014, 11:16:03 AM »
I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

+1 I just bought one for my 24-70 MK! and shot wide open it accentuates the CA to stupid amounts!!! Bokeh looks worse too. Couldn't believe it thought spending good money would be worth it but have to say pretty disappointed with it.

Never shot with filters because they do effect image quality regardless how good they are.
5D MKIII 7D MKII 40D 17-55mm F2.8 16-35mm F2.8 II L 24-70mm F2.8 L 24-105mm F4 L 100mm F2.8 L 70-200mm F2.8 II L 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 II L 2x II 1.4X III 580EX

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1687
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #55 on: July 14, 2014, 11:34:56 AM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3848
  • USM > STM
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #56 on: July 14, 2014, 12:25:51 PM »

And I thought a fresh poll on this might be fun:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21788.0

- A

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5276
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.
There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though
ML: A7R II & A7s -- FE35f1.4 -- FE35f2.8 -- FE55 -- FE85GM -- FE2470GM -- FE70200GM
DSLR: 1Dx + 200L f2 IS  -- sadly replaced this combo with a7s + 70200GM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #58 on: July 14, 2014, 12:44:08 PM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.
There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though
Dylan, the only thing I've noticed is that flare is much worse with two filters, but would agree that sharpness doesn't seem to be an issue, and vignetting is only an issue with certain lens/filter combinations.
CPS Score: 111 points

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 19979
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2014, 10:33:43 PM »
I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

Interesting.  I use toploaders constantly, and I have all three sizes of the Lowepro Toploader Pro (65 AW, 70 AW, 75 AW).  Several of my lenses have XS-Pro filters on them, and I've never had that issue.  I use an XS-Pro filter on my 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I've carried that in the 75 AW with the 1D X and 2xIII TC - a very tight fit where closing the zipper is putting a fair bit of pressure on the camera/lens (and the zipper!), still no issues. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2014, 10:33:43 PM »