I just purchased a 200-800 for a retirement gift. only to find no carry case had to get a knock off pro-master for 40.00 not the 175.00 for a canon one. but I was told that if you have a uv filter on the lens you can't flip the lens hood for storage. Anyone know if this is true? I have yet to open it from the box.
200-800 lens hood
- Thread starter ronbyram
- Start date
Not sure who told you that, but if you buy a good quality UV filter (e.g., B+W) you won’t have any issues.
There is a thread about this on Canon’s forum where the problem was the filter – the person bought a ProMaster filter and it precluded mounting the hood. That’s a cheap brand I see in camera stores (and that it seems you’re familiar with), and probably to make a 95mm filter they had to make the filter mount thicker for sufficient strength with cheaper metal.
All my B+W filters are the same outer diameter as the lens cap for the lens, and Canon won’t design a lens where the hood can’t be put on/removed with the cap on the lens. That is true from the little 43mm CPL filter for my EF-M 22/2 to the big 112mm UV filter for my RF 100-300/2.8L, and includes the 95mm UV filter on my RF 28-70/2L.
So…don’t get a ProMaster UV filter to match the case you bought!
There is a thread about this on Canon’s forum where the problem was the filter – the person bought a ProMaster filter and it precluded mounting the hood. That’s a cheap brand I see in camera stores (and that it seems you’re familiar with), and probably to make a 95mm filter they had to make the filter mount thicker for sufficient strength with cheaper metal.
All my B+W filters are the same outer diameter as the lens cap for the lens, and Canon won’t design a lens where the hood can’t be put on/removed with the cap on the lens. That is true from the little 43mm CPL filter for my EF-M 22/2 to the big 112mm UV filter for my RF 100-300/2.8L, and includes the 95mm UV filter on my RF 28-70/2L.
So…don’t get a ProMaster UV filter to match the case you bought!
Upvote
0
That is a lesson I learned with my 800/11. Thought I had a really bad copy until I took off the cheap UV. Huge jump in image quality right away, clearly visible without pixel peeping at 100%.
Upvote
0
I have the RF200-800mm and use it with a B&W 95mm UV filter: the lenshood fits in the reverse position.thanks for the feed back I have a B&W filter will see how it works outhappy Thanksgiving!
Upvote
0
I don't use a filter on my RF 200-800mm as I find a small decrease in IQ with a usually good filter (Marumi). It's just noticeable when pixel peeping on high resolution charts. A Maven filter was a disaster on it.
Upvote
0
i have not been buying UV Filters since i started buying L-lenses which come with lens hoods. Also L-lenses make cleaning the front element very easy.
Upvote
0
The coatings on the RF200-800mm are not comparable to L-lens coatings. There is no “repellant” coating layer. That is why I use a UV filter in environments where it is likely that dirt, water or spray will come on the lens, e.g. photographing birds on the beach.
Upvote
0
Even with the easy to clean L-series lenses that have the 'fluorine' coating (fluorocarbon, really, but Canon doesn't want to call it that), I use a clear filter. I have no problem cleaning a bare front element at home with the proper tools, but often when out shooting I will just rub the filter clean with a microfiber cloth. No rocket blower to get the fine particles off (and with moisture on it, they would not blow away anyway). I've scratched a couple of B+W filters that way, and those are far easier to swap out than a front element.
Upvote
0
The effect of filters on the telephotos seems erratic.
The effects of filters on telephotos puzzles me. A B&W filter that caused no problems with the EF 400mm ii and seemed fine on the RF 100-500mm degrades noticeably when on the RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC.
Upvote
0
