Canon 16-35mm f/4 Lens Cleaning Issues

[Jemlnlx]

Recently got a Canon 16-35mm f/4 Lens which I love. The only issue is that it seems a lot harder to clean when using a microfober cloth as opposed to my other lenses. I have a 24-70mm I, 70-200 f4 and 300mm f4 (UB Code) which all clean easily. When cleaning the 16-35, it seems like the dust sticks to the glass more. Do they use a different coating on that lens? Not a big issue as I can usually clean after a few extra minutes with combination rocket blower + cloth, its just new to me.

Also, any recommendation on cloths/cleaners would be great.

Any and all feedback is appreciated.

Thanks
Jason

 

[mackguyver]

Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.

 

[YuengLinger]

Guess I'll be the first on this thread to suggest at least trying a high quality UV filter to protect that front element and avoid the need for cleaning it often.

The only time I can get a fingerprint or dust on my front elements is when I'm swapping the UV filter for a circular polarizer or ND filter.

You can experiment with IQ and decide if it takes any detectable hit. I haven't been able to see any whatsoever.

Yes, it could be shown that when shooting into the sun, lens flare characteristics change a bit or might be slightly increased. I usually forget to take mine off to check how much effect it is having. But I don't shoot a lot of sunlit backlight shots.

 

[Random Orbits]

Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.

+1 on the lenspen and rocketblower. I use the lenspen first to get rid of the smudges/marks and brush as much of the stuff off with the lenspen brush. Then rocketblower to blow off the remaining dust/particles.

 

[PureClassA]

http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Pre-Moistened-Cleaning-Wipes-Count/dp/B0030E4UIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426100878&sr=8-1&keywords=zeiss+lens+cleaning

I keep these with me in the bag at all times.

Ditto on filters. I have a B+W UV filter on every lens I own. They saved (drop damage) my 70-200 mkii and my 35mm Sigma ART. They render zero effect on the image, except maybe a tinge of extra vignetting on my 16-35 f4 at the wide end...but whoopie do. Fix that in post. Does a good job of keeping the front elements clear and I clean them with the Zeiss cloths.

 

[davidcarlyon]

Ditto on the B+W filters. I got one each on my 16-35 f/4, Sigma 50mm ART, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II.

I got the XS-Pro for the 16-35mm, which is a bit thinner, but you can still put the regular lens cap on it. It might give a tiny bit of vignetting at 16mm, but nothing you wouldn't notice without a back and forth comparison.

For the other lenses I have F-Pros, which have thicker rings.

 

[bholliman]

Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.

+1 on the lenspen and rocketblower. I use the lenspen first to get rid of the smudges/marks and brush as much of the stuff off with the lenspen brush. Then rocketblower to blow off the remaining dust/particles.

Same here, this combination works great. I find the 16-35/4 to be one of my easier lenses to clean.

I have UV filters for most of my lenses, but have gradually stopped using them unless I need the weather sealing, or in a situation where finger prints (little kids birthday parties...) or dirt will be a problem. No matter how good the UV filter, I feel there is some image degradation. I use my lens hoods to protect the lens front element.

 

[steven kessel]

I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.

 

[Foxdude]

I have protection filter, or UV-filter in every glass I own. I bought the Hoya protection filter to my 16-35 IS at 27€, it is cheap and I don't have to worry about expensive lens and it's front element. No need to remove it, and easy clean.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.

Please don't do that. That PL costs you two stops of iso at least, it has virtually no effect much of the time you are using it apart from raising your iso. Use the UV filter for 'protection' if that is your inclination, but don't put a PL on unless there is a very good reason.

 

[PureClassA]

I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.

Please don't do that. That PL costs you two stops of iso at least, it has virtually no effect much of the time you are using it apart from raising your iso. Use the UV filter for 'protection' if that is your inclination, but don't put a PL on unless there is a very good reason.

Agreed. UV is on mine 24/7. C Pol when needed (bright outdoors, pretty sky, water, glass, etc...). Essentially knocking your lens down to the equivalent of max f8 speeds all the time isn't helping you.... plus... C Pols are way more expensive than UVs, so why use it as your lens insurance policy all the time? I'm not keen on having on to replace a $150 filter

 

[mrzero]

http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Pre-Moistened-Cleaning-Wipes-Count/dp/B0030E4UIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426100878&sr=8-1&keywords=zeiss+lens+cleaning

I keep these with me in the bag at all times.

Ditto on filters. I have a B+W UV filter on every lens I own.

Me too. Blower, then brush to remove big particles. Then Zeiss wipe, followed by a microfiber cloth to dry. The Zeiss wipes are great and large enough to do a couple filters at the same time. I also have lens paper and a spray bottle of solution to use at home, but the wipes are much more convenient. Throw a couple in each bag along with a microfiber cloth, and you can do a field clean anytime, just blow the big particles off the old fashioned way.

 

[mangobutter]

Yep +1 for UV filter. Me personally I have a Marumi 77mm CPL filter on my 16-35. When I am doing stuff in low light i just take it off. But otherwise it stays on full time. I'd do the UV filter or any filter.

I used to worry and nitpick over image degradation with filters. There's no perceptible degradation if you use quality stuff. even at 100% pixel peeping. don't even worry about it. all my lenses are protected.

the only time you ever notice any difference if you're shooting into bright light sources. might get some reflections... but a high quality filter minimizes those to close to nothing

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I long ago took off all my B+W and Heliopan filters and put them away. Right away, there was enough increase in contrast and apparent sharpness that I only put them on when absolutely necessary due to weather or blowing dust.

I really should sell them, I must have 15 or more of various sizes. I do occasionally use my polarizing filters, but only for shots where water is in the scene. I also have a couple ND filters, but they get almost no use, since I don't do significant video.

 

[PureClassA]

I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.

 

[mangobutter]

I long ago took off all my B+W and Heliopan filters and put them away. Right away, there was enough increase in contrast and apparent sharpness that I only put them on when absolutely necessary due to weather or blowing dust.

I really should sell them, I must have 15 or more of various sizes. I do occasionally use my polarizing filters, but only for shots where water is in the scene. I also have a couple ND filters, but they get almost no use, since I don't do significant video.

That's weird. I've never noticed any difference. And I'm an extremely picky pixel peeper. 3:1 all day long on a 27" iMac using various lenses, gears, manual, auto focus, mirror lock up, the works. Tested all kinds of scenarios. Lenstip and other sites have tested this too. Same findings. No difference down to pixel level. The reason you use them is simply for protection (Uv filters)

So maybe you had very very poor filters or they were dirty--and no just because there's a famous name behind it doesn't mean those filters will be the best. I've seen some low performing B&Ws--mostly the difference is light transmission and flare. The only way I can see contrast difference is if you're shooting bright light sources and using poor filters with poor coatings that allows light to bounce around. Either way though I've tried cheap Tiffens and no difference down to pixel level. Your technique will make the biggest difference. If you like shooting "Raw" though that's fine. But I'd rather my filters get dirty than my front element!

 

[mangobutter]

I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.

My opinion: keep your filters on.

This was shot with a cheap Tiffen CPL stuck on the end of my 70-200 F4L and EOS M @ 200mm wide open. Do you need to get any sharper than this?

 

[PureClassA]

I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.

My opinion: keep your filters on.

This was shot with a cheap Tiffen CPL stuck on the end of my 70-200 F4L and EOS M @ 200mm wide open. Do you need to get any sharper than this?

Looks like you were in my town for Mardi Gras ;-)

 

[privatebydesign]

I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.

My opinion: keep your filters on.

This was shot with a cheap Tiffen CPL stuck on the end of my 70-200 F4L and EOS M @ 200mm wide open. Do you need to get any sharper than this?

Do that with a flaring light or low contrast and you will easily see the difference.

I have posted this before, it is a with and without UV filter.

 

[YuengLinger]

So the more contrasty shot is without a UV filter? Thank you for the demo.