Canon 16-35mm f/4 Lens Cleaning Issues

[privatebydesign]

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

Yes, the more contrasty shot is the one without the UV filter.

EDIT: I mistakenly forgot to type 'out' on the with in my earlier reply!

UV filters do impact image quality, sometimes so marginally as to be irrelevant, but sometimes much greater than that, I do not use UV filters unless I am in very harsh environments, very dusty or damp, stuff like that. I never considered UV filters as any kind of impact protection, the front elements and their coatings are much tougher than the filters and there's no end of images on line where broken filters have damaged front elements.

 

[YuengLinger]

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

Yes, the more contrasty shot is the one with the UV filter.

I guessed wong then. Perhaps in some cases, a touch more luminous without the filter.

 

[Jemlnlx]

Thanks for all the input.

I used a dirtier cloth at first, then tried a new cloth (not sure branding) which didn't help much. Last night I gave it a tried with the cloth provided by Canon CPS (new) and it worked great. The previous ones may have been cheaper ?brands/quality?

As for filters, I have been back and forth. I have a bunch of Hoya, B&W and Rodenstock filters, but tend to use them rarely. I was pretty content on having the lens hoods as protection, but I realize that the shallow hoods (such as the wide angle lens ones - 17-40, 16-35) would offer less protection during a fall or bump.

I also change filters a lot of my wides (CPL, ND, GND) which I'd imagine increases the risk of dust accumulation.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Yes, the more contrasty shot is the one with[out (edit)] the UV filter.

I guessed wong then. Perhaps in some cases, a touch more luminous without the filter.

I apologize. You were right, I typed wrong! I meant to type without but made a mistake, thanks for picking up on it I'd have hated the wrong impression to be out there.

 

[wsheldon]

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

Yes, the more contrasty shot is the one without the UV filter.

EDIT: I mistakenly forgot to type 'out' on the with in my earlier reply!

UV filters do impact image quality, sometimes so marginally as to be irrelevant, but sometimes much greater than that, I do not use UV filters unless I am in very harsh environments, very dusty or damp, stuff like that. I never considered UV filters as any kind of impact protection, the front elements and their coatings are much tougher than the filters and there's no end of images on line where broken filters have damaged front elements.

I agree, so I tend to leave off filters unless needed for a shot (ND, CPL) or in rainy, sandy or dusty environments to complete the weather sealing on my 17-40L, 24-105L, etc. Filter quality and coatings do matter, though, and some lenses also appear to be more sensitive to ghosting and flare from filters than others (e.g. 100-400L), so I'm not surprised that experiences vary. Hood use also matters.

Here's a fun article about image degradation from cheap and high quality UV filters at LensRentals.com: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

 

[mackguyver]

Filters are such an annoying damned if you do, damned if you don't subject for me. I have some older UV filters (high quality B+W XS-Pro) that are scratched up and even chipped, so their value is obvious. OTOH, I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.

I don't think there's an answer - you can either be really careful, carry insurance, and don't use filters; or you can use them

 

[bholliman]

I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.

+1 This is the main reason I've stopped using UV filters. I do a lot of shooting into the sun and ruined too many shots due to flare from forgetting to remove the filter. For me the disadvantages of UV filters (image degradation and flare) far outweigh the benefits.

 

[privatebydesign]

Filters are such an annoying damned if you do, damned if you don't subject for me. I have some older UV filters (high quality B+W XS-Pro) that are scratched up and even chipped, so their value is obvious. OTOH, I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.

I don't think there's an answer - you can either be really careful, carry insurance, and don't use filters; or you can use them

That is all true, but from empirical results I haven't used a 'protection' filter since the 1980's and whilst I am not an animal with my gear I certainly don't baby it. In all that time I have never damaged a front element, but I am a religious user of hoods and have cracked and knocked off a few of them!

 

[Dylan777]

Highly recommend this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

 

[martti]

It is my choice, it is my front element. With the volcanic dust and salt spray in the air the protection filter makes sense. I was my eyeglasses three or four times a day under tap water so that I can see clearly. People could use their own judgement...how much does replacing a scratched front lens cost you, how much is a filter.
There is a lot of fundamentalism in photography.
Fundamentalism roots in not having data as the basis of your decision making but beliefs.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is my choice, it is my front element. With the volcanic dust and salt spray in the air the protection filter makes sense. I was my eyeglasses three or four times a day under tap water so that I can see clearly. People could use their own judgement...how much does replacing a scratched front lens cost you, how much is a filter.
There is a lot of fundamentalism in photography.
Fundamentalism roots in not having data as the basis of your decision making but beliefs.

Of course it is yours, and of course you can do what you want.

I am just giving my long term experience, and the truth is the only damaged front elements I have actually seen have been damaged by protective filters scratching them when they get broken. Of course many front elements have been damaged without filters, I know of a guy who has broken his 17TS-E front element twice, but I didn't see it.

I have over 30 years of data and I have never damaged a front element and I rarely use a UV filter, though I do occasionally in very harsh environments on the lenses that need a filter for sealing reasons. Add in the results from my image impact test and I am sold on saving the $80 dollars average per lens (I have 8 lenses) and I have saved myself a shed load of money and even if I have to repair one eventually I have still saved money.

 

[martti]

 

[Ruined]

Highly recommend this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

My suggestion as well, that one in particular is amazing for this lens.

There is only one real time when filters cause a noticeable artifact that is often difficult to remove: shooting into a bright light source. This will cause additional flare you would see much less of without the filter.

However, filters complete the weathersealing on the 16-35 f/4L and offer protection to the front element. Yes the front element is durable. Yes, the front element part is often affordable. But service charges can be expensive, and as the OP noted cleaning a filter like the one linked is much easier in the field than the lens itself. You can even clean it with your shirt as if it gets scratched you can simply replace it. You can worry less about the front element & environmental hazards with a filter, and instead focus on shooting the picture.

As long as you take the filter off when shooting into a bright light source (i.e. sun & moon at night), there is really not much of note that you lose quality-wise with a good filter.