December 07, 2016, 03:33:59 PM

Author Topic: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?  (Read 19715 times)

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 #15 on: July 12, 2014, 09:24:12 AM »
I can imagine that this question has been on the forum before. I am sorry if so.
I've bought the new 16-35 f/4. I was recommended to put a B+W Slim 010 UV 77 E MRC filter on the front especially for protection. But this filter isn't available (can't find it on the net either).
Do you use a protection filter or .......

If you put a filter on, remember to take it off when you take photographs.

??

??

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it

Right because all my L glass has filters on them and haven't been able to take a single photo with them.  ::) ::) ::) Some people.... smh...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2014, 09:24:12 AM »

Eagle Eye

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 163
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2014, 10:06:00 AM »
Guys, remember, when you're ready to shoot a photo, remove the front glass elements from your lens. Actually, just remove the lens. It may be best to take the camera away, too. Guys, when you're ready to take a photo, just look with your eye.
Gear! When do we get gear?!

Ruined

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 795
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2014, 10:19:43 AM »
Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter.  There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.

But, in exchange you get:

* Weather-sealing: both the 16-35 f/4L IS and the 16-35 f/2.8L II are *not* weather sealed without a filter.

* Ease of cleaning:  Got some crud on the clear filter?  Spit shine it with your shirt! If you scratch it, the investment to replace is minimal.  Busting out a microfiber cloth in the field isn't always practical.

* Virtual lens cap: sometimes during sessions you need to swap between two cameras quickly.  Would you want to throw a camera in a bag - or have it in a holster - with no lens cap?  Well, assuming you don't drop your bag on concrete, for these fast swaps there is little risk if you put a capless lens/camera in a bag if it has a filter.  One shouldn't make a habit of this, but its an option you generally would not have without a filter.

* Riskier shots: 16mm on full frame may require you to get VERY close to what you want to photograph in some cases.  Do you want to risk your unprotected front element in these cases?  How about action shots, if you are photographing in harsh elements, or just greater confidence in general since you don't have to worry about your lens?

* In reality, it does cost a lot to fix the front element of a lens, and you will lose use of the lens while its being repaired: While some blogs have pointed out that the cost of a front element is not always that much, the labor to replace it usually is large amount and it involves your lens being out of action while getting repaired.  If you are getting paid, this is not a situation you want to be in.

In my opinion, the benefits FAR outweigh the very minimal additional flare you might get with a quality filter.  If you are shooting pictures of the moon at night, that is one situation I can think of where you might want to pass on a filter due to the extremely bright/dark transition (high contrast) subject matter being the focus of  the picture.  Every other situation, keep it on.  That is, assuming you buy a good one - I only use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC 007m as it is color-neutral, multicoated, and very slim.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 10:24:12 AM by Ruined »

YuengLinger

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1056
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2014, 10:30:01 AM »
Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter.  There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.

But, in exchange you get:

* Weather-sealing: both the 16-35 f/4L IS and the 16-35 f/2.8L II are *not* weather sealed without a filter.

* Ease of cleaning:  Got some crud on the clear filter?  Spit shine it with your shirt! If you scratch it, the investment to replace is minimal.  Busting out a microfiber cloth in the field isn't always practical.

* Virtual lens cap: sometimes during sessions you need to swap between two cameras quickly.  Would you want to throw a camera in a bag - or have it in a holster - with no lens cap?  Well, assuming you don't drop your bag on concrete, for these fast swaps there is little risk if you put a capless lens/camera in a bag if it has a filter.  One shouldn't make a habit of this, but its an option you generally would not have without a filter.

* Riskier shots: 16mm on full frame may require you to get VERY close to what you want to photograph in some cases.  Do you want to risk your unprotected front element in these cases?  How about action shots, if you are photographing in harsh elements, or just greater confidence in general since you don't have to worry about your lens?

* In reality, it does cost a lot to fix the front element of a lens, and you will lose use of the lens while its being repaired: While some blogs have pointed out that the cost of a front element is not always that much, the labor to replace it usually is large amount and it involves your lens being out of action while getting repaired.  If you are getting paid, this is not a situation you want to be in.

In my opinion, the benefits FAR outweigh the very minimal additional flare you might get with a quality filter.  If you are shooting pictures of the moon at night, that is one situation I can think of where you might want to pass on a filter due to the extremely bright/dark transition (high contrast) subject matter being the focus of  the picture.  Every other situation, keep it on.  That is, assuming you buy a good one - I only use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC 007m as it is color-neutral, multicoated, and very slim.

Exactly! 

Canon recommends filters on L series, which carries more weight than OCD fretting over invisible lmpact on IQ.

Geeze' when somebody wants advice on gear or techniques that bug you, just let it go.  Silly old debate.

And +1 for B+W!

« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 10:32:51 AM by YuengLinger »

Khalai

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Let there be (flattering) light!
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2014, 10:30:37 AM »
B+W 007 MRC Nano XS-Pro Digital 77mm E
+1

007 line of B+W filters are clear (i.e. no UV or IR filtering capabilities), just for protection. There is no need for additional UV and/or IR filtering with modern cameras anymore. I use these on my lenses as well...
6D | 7D | 16-35/4L | 24-70/2.8L II | 50/1.2L | 100/2.8L | 70-200/2.8L II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20031
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2014, 11:19:21 AM »
If you put a filter on, remember to take it off when you take photographs.

Spoken like a true troll.

From http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml:

Otherwise, use that UV filter like a lenscap, and take it off before you shoot.

His bio is here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ABOUT/contributors/m-johnston.shtml

So you would be calling him a troll too, no?

No, you're the troll. But the article author mentions only increased possibility of flare in backlit scenes.  As Ruined stated, there are many advantages to using a protective (UV or clear) filter.

As I stated, for the lens under discussion Canon indicates that a front filter is required for weather and dust sealing.  As for other L-series lenses, Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on all sealed lenses that have front threads (as in, personally recommended to me in an email exchange discussing weather sealed lenses).


Indeed, it is a silly old debate.

Did the OP ask whether or not to use a filter?  No.  The debate was ignited in this thread by YOUR silly comment, which is why I label you a TROLL.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20031
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2014, 11:22:02 AM »
If you put a filter on, remember to take it off when you take photographs.

Spoken like a true troll.

From http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml:

Otherwise, use that UV filter like a lenscap, and take it off before you shoot.

His bio is here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ABOUT/contributors/m-johnston.shtml

So you would be calling him a troll too, no?

No, you're the troll. But the article author mentions only increased possibility of flare in backlit scenes.  As Ruined stated, there are many advantages to using a protective (UV or clear) filter, and other than flare there is no meaningful IQ impact (and I've looked, using ISO 12233-type charts costing more than some L-series lenses).

As I stated, for the lens under discussion Canon indicates that a front filter is required for weather and dust sealing.  As for other L-series lenses, Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on all sealed lenses that have front threads (as in, personally recommended to me in an email exchange discussing weather sealed lenses).


Indeed, it is a silly old debate.

Did the OP ask whether or not to use a filter?  No.  The debate was ignited in this thread by YOUR silly comment, which is why I label you a TROLL.
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 #21 on: July 12, 2014, 11:22:02 AM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3900
  • USM > STM
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2014, 11:25:27 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

- A

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20031
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2014, 11:29:32 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

For me, that means not buying one at all, as I have at least one (maybe 2) surplus 77mm F-Pro MRC UV filters.  One came from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which surprisingly for a telezoom lens does have additional vignetting with an F-Pro mount, so I replaced it with a 77mm XS-Pro.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3900
  • USM > STM
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2014, 11:43:38 AM »
The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...

+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm.  I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment.

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77      77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

For me, that means not buying one at all, as I have at least one (maybe 2) surplus 77mm F-Pro MRC UV filters.  One came from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which surprisingly for a telezoom lens does have additional vignetting with an F-Pro mount, so I replaced it with a 77mm XS-Pro.

Disclaimer:  my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm.

Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner.  But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?

- A

fish_shooter

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Underwater Photographer
    • salmonography.com
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2014, 12:04:05 PM »
I got my 16-35 IS and put on the Tiffen equivalent to the filter recommended in this thread, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533244-REG/Tiffen_77HTDUC_77mm_Digital_HT_High.html
I then put the the lens on my 1Ds2 and placed it in my underwater housing for it and took some preliminary test shots yesterday during a break in a major storm (> 2" of rain). One is posted here (@16mm). No adverse effects from the filter; glad to have the weather sealing (per Canon) as "insurance".
Tom
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 12:07:48 PM by fish_shooter »
Canon EOS-1D X, -1Ds Mk III, and -1Ds MkII cameras in Seacam underwater housings. Primary lenses to shoot under water: EF8-15L, EF16-35L IS, and EF100L
Other Canons: EOS-7D MkII and EOS M

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20031
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2014, 12:13:40 PM »
Disclaimer:  my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm.

Bryan/TDP tests using an F-Pro filter and quantifies the vignetting with Imatest.  He shows no effect of the filter at 16mm f/4.

Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner.  But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?

Yes, a filter can increase optical vignetting without causing mechanical vignetting, depending on filter thickness, lens design and selected aperture.  For example, on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, stacking up to two F-Pro filters has no effect at f/2.8, but adding an additional XS-Pro filter causes mechanical vignetting at f/2.8, and ~1 stop of optical vignetting (but no mechanical vignetting) at f/5.6.  With the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, stacking an F-Pro and an XS-Pro results in ~3/4-stop more optical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1/2-stop at f/5.6, two F-Pro filters gives mechanical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1.5-stops optical vignetting at f/5.6. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20031
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2014, 02:58:13 PM »
So again, neutronomist, you resort to personal attacks rather than providing any sort of argument of substance and I'll take that as you raising the white flag rather than being able to mount or sustain any sort of credible argument.

Thanks for playing.

Now all the protection filter does is give the vendor selling you kit something to make a good margin on: it optically serves no purpose with modern lenses and digital sensors.

So, I didn't bring up the weather sealing requirement?  See post #7.  Or state that outside of backlit scenes there is no optical disadvantage?

Thanks for trolling.

Protection filters do just that – protect.  That serves an important purpose.  If you choose not to use them, good for you.  But saying they serve no purpose other than vendor profit is incorrect. 

What are the odds of front element damage if no filter is used?  Low.  Perhaps not too different from the odds of contracting an STD from having unprotected sex with a stranger.  At least a scratched lens is better than syphilis... 
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 #27 on: July 12, 2014, 02:58:13 PM »

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 #28 on: July 12, 2014, 03:00:19 PM »
Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter.  There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.

But, in exchange you get:

* Weather-sealing: both the 16-35 f/4L IS and the 16-35 f/2.8L II are *not* weather sealed without a filter.

Yup. there is this. However most people give up due to weather before their cameras do.

Quote
* Ease of cleaning:  Got some crud on the clear filter?  Spit shine it with your shirt! If you scratch it, the investment to replace is minimal.  Busting out a microfiber cloth in the field isn't always practical.

Hint: UV filters and protection filters scratch more easily than the front element of your lens. This means that your on the road cleaning of the filter with your tie can introduce a mark the results in flaring and needing to remove the filter anyway.

Quote
* Virtual lens cap: sometimes during sessions you need to swap between two cameras quickly.  Would you want to throw a camera in a bag - or have it in a holster - with no lens cap?  Well, assuming you don't drop your bag on concrete, for these fast swaps there is little risk if you put a capless lens/camera in a bag if it has a filter.  One shouldn't make a habit of this, but its an option you generally would not have without a filter.

If you're careless with your equipment then bad things will happen sooner or later, irrespective of whether or not you put a filter on the front of your lens. Maybe one day when you throw it in the bag, the lens mounting will break, who knows.

Quote
* Riskier shots: 16mm on full frame may require you to get VERY close to what you want to photograph in some cases.  Do you want to risk your unprotected front element in these cases?  How about action shots, if you are photographing in harsh elements, or just greater confidence in general since you don't have to worry about your lens?

When I take risky shots it isn't the front element that's at risk, it is the entire rig and/or me. And I've taken some risky shots. Balanced on a rock in the middle of the Merced, if the camera falls and gets wet, the filter on the front of the lens ain't going to make any difference to anything except the front element of the lens and that's likely to be the least of my concerns. The occasional drop of water spray hitting the front of the lens is of little concern and a minor risk in comparison to everything else.

Quote
* In reality, it does cost a lot to fix the front element of a lens, and you will lose use of the lens while its being repaired: While some blogs have pointed out that the cost of a front element is not always that much, the labor to replace it usually is large amount and it involves your lens being out of action while getting repaired.  If you are getting paid, this is not a situation you want to be in.

By all means keep a protection filter on if it makes you feel better/good but there is no reason, optically speaking, for it to be there today (unlike in the past.)

The problem is that people used to put UV filters on lenses to deal with film problems and habits are hard to break so people have kept doing that and in the absence of needing to do it for film, have come up with new reasons.

In this list of 5, there's one real reason (the weather sealing.) Everything else has just been hired in as supporting cast members.

Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

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 #29 on: July 13, 2014, 10:04:17 AM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?
Your post.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2014, 10:04:17 AM »