September 18, 2014, 04:06:13 AM

Author Topic: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?  (Read 4630 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14390
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #30 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 M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2014, 12:13:40 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2916
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2014, 02:05:37 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.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2916
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2014, 02:08:12 PM »
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.

I'm surprised he only came up with five.

Quote
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).

Yes, there is the "filter required to provide weather sealing" but then what is weather sealing really worth? Lens rentals have had something to say about that in the past and it wasn't all that glowing.

Quote
Indeed, it is a silly old debate.

Did the OP ask whether or not to use a filter?  No.

Yes, actually, the OP did. Look at the topic of this thread:

"UV filer on the new 16-35 f/4?"

Note that it ends in a question mark. Also the original post ends like this:

"Do you use a protection filter or ......."

Which is an open ended statement that itself asks the question as to whether a protection filter should be used or not.

Yes, in saying to take one off when you shoot I'm arguing against lots of other people. People who have built up reasons to defend their choice and the best that you can come up with is to label me a troll because I don't accept that and I'm a more progressive thinker than that. The real reasons to use a UV filter are now historical.

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.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14390
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #33 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 M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3450
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #34 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. :)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2916
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2014, 08:38:59 AM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3450
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #36 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 #36 on: July 13, 2014, 10:04:17 AM »

Straightshooter

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2014, 10:06:04 AM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?

Poor Dilbert! Under attack by the Super-Geeks!  >:(
Don't forget, Neuroanatomist recently mentioned that his wife is smart TOO!  ::)

By the way, 'Neuro', we are all very impressed by your technical knowledge, but can you actually shoot a decent photo?
Just wondering...?  ;)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14390
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2014, 10:23:19 AM »
By the way, 'Neuro', we are all very impressed by your technical knowledge, but can you actually shoot a decent photo?
Just wondering...?  ;)

I'm happy with many of them.  Feel free to browse...unlike many posters here who seem reluctant to post their own images, I put a link to my photostream in my signature. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Phenix205

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2014, 11:11:25 AM »
This is entertaining. It all started with a student who genuinely was seeking advice. Then there were clowns, professors, associate professors, fake professors, kids who hate professors. We all know in the end the true knowledge prevails.
5D3 | M | 1v
70-200 II | 24-70 II | 16-35 IS | 100 L | 85L II | 40 | 600EX-RT

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2916
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2014, 12:00:36 PM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?
Your post.

If I said that you're wrong and I'm right, would that make you feel better?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3450
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2014, 12:16:59 PM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?
Your post.

If I said that you're wrong and I'm right, would that make you feel better?
TL;DR

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1232
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2014, 12:44:59 PM »
A lens like this is meant for outdoor, landscape / seascapes use in which case you'd want some kind of protection. If you were using it indoors in a studio then you can prob skip the filter. It's pretty simple - Use a a filter when required.

I keep a filter on my EF-M 22 f/2 all the time instead of a lens cap. It means it's always ready to shoot and easy to store (don't need to worry). Lens caps are all good and well but they can come off in your bag. Filter makes sense when you're out and about. For all other lenses it depends what I'm doing.

If I'm taking my time (tripod work) I'll remove the filter but that's usually because I want to use an ND or a polarizer.
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

EOS M | 22 f/2 | 11-22 IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2014, 12:44:59 PM »

Otter

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2014, 01:14:34 PM »
It sounds like I am the minority but definitely no filter for me.  I shoot mostly landscapes and use a lee filter system with 2 slots and even a polarizer on the end as well at times. I can't afford to put a UV filter on the end and increase vingetting even further. 
I do use UV filters on my other lenses that I don't stack extra filters on but I have to opt out for the 16-35mm F4.  With my last 16-35 2.8 I did not use a filter with either.  I am not sure what the extent of the sealing and weather proofing is but I did have a small piece of dust in my glass.  However it was never visible in my photos and was a none issue.
As crazy as it sounds and I know someone was trolling about it in an early post, but I will prob store it with a filter on the end and take it off for shoots.  ;)

Jack56

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2014, 01:43:44 PM »
Thank you all for all the comments. I didn't know that this question would gave me so much response.
I think the last advice will suit me best. Keep it extra safe in every place and remove the filter when required.
The best of both worlds, so to say, and I have to pay for that.
Thanks again!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2014, 01:43:44 PM »