Filters on tele-zooms

[Del Paso]

Wrong. It only NEEDS a filter if you NEED to focus the attached lens on distant subjects.

I thought I had read a filter was mandatory when using this adapter.
Good to know, since I'm going to order this adapter for macro with vintage lenses.

 

[koenkooi]

I thought I had read a filter was mandatory when using this adapter.
Good to know, since I'm going to order this adapter for macro with vintage lenses.

There’s a big hole in the side without a filter present. You can get filterless caps to cover it, but as @neuroanatomist states, you loose infinity focus.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can get filterless caps to cover it

Here's one example.

 

[AlanF]

Agreed; always lens hood. I use filters (99% ND's for shooting strobes wide open in the sun without going HSS) when needed, otherwise there's no reason in putting anything in front of my lenses, adding another glass/air surface in front of them.
If those "protective" filters wouldn't kill quality (even expensive stuff in 100$'s; of course not talking about 2$ aliexpress sh*t), lens manufactures would integrate themselves in front of the lenses (something more permanent, not just a screw-on), so they could sell you spares when/if you break one; if they don't do it, renouncing to a possible business, it's because they know they weaken the optic scheme.

Protective filters it's just a thing that someone was paid to sponsor, and internet people followed; power of the influencers.

Such over-the-top comments and generalisations are usually very silly, as @neuroanatomist pointed out using crushing examples.

 

[Maximilian]

I have the EF100-400L II as well as the RF100-500. I had the EF100-400L I.
I always used B&W filters, But also checked IQ without.
I only saw recognizable differences with light sources in frame and flare.

I hope, you’ll find a solution.

 

[Del Paso]

I have the EF100-400L II as well as the RF100-500. I had the EF100-400L I.
I always used B&W filters, But also checkend IQ without.
I only saw recognisable differences with lightsources in frame and flare.

I hope, you‘ll find a soulution.

I found it, thank you, I'll use a filter on this lens only if really needed, as usual (rain, sea, sand, mud).

 

[Walrus]

Such over-the-top comments and generalisations are usually very silly, as @neuroanatomist pointed out using crushing examples.

That's how I feel about the topic; using filters permanently stuck in front of a lens has no sense at all, again unless you have specific needs (PL's, ND's, etc) to achieve a certain effect in a certain moment, or you need to physically protect the lens from the harsh environment (shooting under falls, with heavy water spray, or maybe in the desert with wind, to avoid sandblasting your front lens).
In any other case, which is 99% of photography done by 99% of people, living with a uv/protector filter in front of your lens, stuck there for life, is something heard by the word of mouth, and everybody followed.

 

[EricN]

That's how I feel about the topic; using filters permanently stuck in front of a lens has no sense at all, again unless you have specific needs (PL's, ND's, etc) to achieve a certain effect in a certain moment, or you need to physically protect the lens from the harsh environment (shooting under falls, with heavy water spray, or maybe in the desert with wind, to avoid sandblasting your front lens).
In any other case, which is 99% of photography done by 99% of people, living with a uv/protector filter in front of your lens, stuck there for life, is something heard by the word of mouth, and everybody followed.

Do you have a source for these two 99% numbers?

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's how I feel about the topic; using filters permanently stuck in front of a lens has no sense at all

You can feel however you want. But you claimed that your feelings were validated by the practices of major lens manufacturers, when the facts are completely opposite.

By putting permanent filters in front of some of their highest-quality lenses, and by requiring front filters on other professional lenses to complete the weather sealing, major lens manufacturers —who have knowledge of optics vastly superior to yours— are saying that it makes plenty of sense to use a front filter for protection.

As always, you are entitled to your own opinion…but not to your own facts.

 

[EricN]

You can feel however you want. But you claimed that your feelings were validated by the practices of major lens manufacturers, when the facts are completely opposite.

By putting permanent filters in front of some of their highest-quality lenses, and by requiring front filters on other professional lenses to complete the weather sealing, major lens manufacturers —who have knowledge of optics vastly superior to yours— are saying that it makes plenty of sense to use a front filter for protection.

As always, you are entitled to your own opinion…but not to your own facts.

If I remember, Walrus even has one of the Canon's lenses that require a filter for the weather sealing (ef 24-70 f/2.8L ii).

 

[Kit.]

That's how I feel about the topic; using filters permanently stuck in front of a lens has no sense at all, again unless you have specific needs (PL's, ND's, etc) to achieve a certain effect in a certain moment, or you need to physically protect the lens from the harsh environment (shooting under falls, with heavy water spray, or maybe in the desert with wind, to avoid sandblasting your front lens).

One never knows when such "harsh environment" may happen.

My wife got the front filter of her RF 100-400 licked by a random dog in the park just a couple of days ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If I remember, Walrus even has one of the Canon's lenses that require a filter for the weather sealing (ef 24-70 f/2.8L ii).

The EF 24-70/2.8 II does not need a filter for sealing. That applies to lenses with a moving inner barrel that sits behind the front threads, e.g. the EF 16-35/2.8 lenses, and IIRC the EF 50/1.2L (not that the latter would suffer optically from a filter anyway, given the 'dreamy' look wide open and the heavy bokeh fringing). Lenses with traditional extending barrels (like the RF 14-35/4) don't require a front filter for sealing.

 

[Del Paso]

Do you have a source for these two 99% numbers?

Qanon I presume...

 

[EricN]

Qanon I presume...

Sigma users have some kinda conspiracies so we have to vote with our wallets for Qanon?

 

[AlanF]

Do you have a source for these two 99% numbers?

The same source as for other "facts".

 

[AlanF]

One never knows when such "harsh environment" may happen.

My wife got the front filter of her RF 100-400 licked by a random dog in the park just a couple of days ago.

Dogs can do worse things than that.

 

[AlanF]

Sense about filters from uncle Rog: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

 

[MSH411]

Sigma users have some kinda conspiracies so we have to vote with our wallets for Qanon?

What is that supposed to mean? I'm a Sigma user and use filters conditionally base on the shooting conditions. Dust or water I use a filter, indoors or clear skies I don't but have them in my bag. Are you saying were are brighter and more open minded.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sense about filters from uncle Rog: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Sounds like the prices he’s talking about are for the replacement part. I don’t have the skill or the tools for a front element replacement to be a DIY job. I’d disagree with his suggestion that regular consumers would pay ‘a bit more’, I suspect Canon would charge rather more than a bit over the cost of the part.

It’s also going to vary by geography – to replace the main PCB in my 1D X, Canon USA charged me just over $200 (obviously mostly labor). Someone posted the same repair by Canon in the EU was 500-600 €. I imagine lens repairs are similarly variable.

Also, I suspect there’s likely a minimum charge for a repair. I haven’t checked for a front element, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Canon charges $150-200 (plus shipping costs) to replace the small front element of something like the M22/2. Not really different from just buying a new lens. Similarly, when my M body died, Canon quoted a flat repair charge of $220, and buying a new M2 was only $10 more so I did that instead.

Uncle Rog says the replacement front element runs from 9-33% of new lens cost, and also that newer lenses are skewed toward the high end of that. Add labor costs and shipping, and a reasonable assumption is a front element replacement costing 20% of new lens cost.

His recommendations align with what I have been doing, starting with my first DSLR in 2009. Putting a $100 filter on a $3000 lens or a $250 filter on a $9500 lens makes good sense. Putting a $50 filter on a $200 lens doesn’t, which is why I don’t use a filter to protect my M22/2, or the M15-45, or similarly cheap lenses.

Granted, a filter only protects from front element damage, and there are lots of other ways to damage a lens. I probably have around $1200 worth of clear filters, but since I have ~$30K in lenses that take front filters, spending 4% of that to protect those front elements seems very reasonable.

More importantly, and the real reason I use them, is peace of mind. Cameras and lenses are tools, and I treat them as such. That means if I’m out somewhere and there’s a smudged fingerprint or a coating of dust on the front, I’m not going to get out the rocket blower and blow it mostly clean, then get out the LensPen and brush then carbon tip clean it, then use the blower to get rid of the carbon dust remnants…I’m just going to grab the bottom of my shirt and wipe it. I don’t mind doing that to a filter. Also, the blower/LensPen combo is not very effective in the circumstance I most often need to wipe down the filter – water droplets, usually with some dust mixed in.

So far over 15 years, I’ve had to replace three filters because of scratches from cleaning them expeditiously. At that 20% of new lens cost for a front element replacement, the cost of all my filters is less the repairs to those lenses would have cost.

So for me, using protective filters makes perfect sense. YMMV.

 

[EricN]

What is that supposed to mean? I'm a Sigma user and use filters conditionally base on the shooting conditions. Dust or water I use a filter, indoors or clear skies I don't but have them in my bag. Are you saying were are brighter and more open minded.

It doesn't really mean anything. There's some conspiracy theory in USA called QAnon. Some Republicans say the elite of their opposition are involved in some things that aren't really appropriate to mention here. I said Sigma because Walrus is a big fan of them and we consider them an opposition to Canon.
Special note:
They say "if someone needs to explain a joke, then it wasn't funny." That never stopped Gilbert Godfrey and it won't stop me!