August 28, 2014, 07:35:24 AM

Author Topic: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?  (Read 4370 times)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2725
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #60 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...
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1248
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #61 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 5D | 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 40mm f/2.8 STM, 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

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3906
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #62 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 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

yoms

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #63 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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #64 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, 16-35mm F2.8 II L, 24-70mm F2.8 L, 24-105mm F4 IS L, 100mm F2.8 IS L, 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L, 50mm F1.8, 2x Ex, 580EX
BU: 40D,17-55mm F2.8 IS
www.tomscottphotography.co.uk

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1248
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #65 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 5D | 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 40mm f/2.8 STM, 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

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 843
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #66 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 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3906
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #67 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
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2725
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #68 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.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13933
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #69 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 M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List