Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

[RS2021]

The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on your EF 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?

The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.

Because ultimately, actions speak louder than well thought out intentions. We all know the usual arguments for and against using UV filters that proponents use to support claims. Some fall back on specific lenses, where IQ may suffer vs. need to protect the front element, and needing it to complete weather sealing etc etc...it is frequently a slew of compromise explanations.

Let us try and gauge what we actually do in practice by taking a lens owned by good many, granted not all; and of 'relatively' decent $ value; with consensus on high IQ (that could arguably be degraded by a haze filter). To increase the sample size, either of the 2.8L IS versions are ok. This lens choice also hopefully ensures we aren't sampling exorbitant superteles or the lower price range lenses; but, something narrowly defined, commonly possessed, yet valuable.

In voting, please let only your actions speak. No "oh I could have" or "oh I wish I had" answers... No fudging...simple question: did you have it on during its most recent use?

 

[infared]

Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?

The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.

Because ultimately, actions speak louder than well thought out intentions. We all know the usual arguments for and against using UV filters that proponents use to support claims. Some fall back on specific lenses, where IQ may suffer vs. need to protect the front element, and needing it to complete weather sealing etc etc...it is frequently a slew of compromise explanations.

Let us try and gauge what we actually do in practice by taking a lens owned by good many, granted not all; and of 'relatively' decent $ value; with consensus on high IQ (that could arguably be degraded by a haze filter). To increase the sample size, either of the 2.8L IS versions are ok. This lens choice also hopefully ensures we aren't sampling exorbitant superteles or the lower price range lenses; but, something narrowly defined, commonly possessed, yet valuable.

In voting, please let only your actions speak. No "oh I could have" or "oh I wish I had" answers... No fudging...simple question: did you have it on during its most recent use?

Did you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

 

[RS2021]

Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

Did you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

Yes, else I think we may lose the relatively narrow sampling. I will edit title to include "EF".
Edit. And I didn't even catch the typo in the initial response here. Yikes.

 

[FTb-n]

Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

28-700? Where can I find this lens?

Are you looking only for UV protective filters or UV and clear protective filters?

 

[RS2021]

Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

28-700? Where can I find this lens?

Are you looking only for UV protective filters or UV and clear protective filters?

Corrected now
For the purpose of this poll any "protective" filters... Being more specific will produce too small an 'n'.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.

 

[RS2021]

Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.

Or Alec Baldwin comin at ya swinging...but then it may not help much

 

[helpful]

Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.

+1

 

[AudioGlenn]

I have a Hoya HD1 UV Filter on there for protection. For my 24-70 II, I purchased a Hoya HD1 Clear Protecter instead of a UV Filter

 

[infared]

YES. I use a B&W 77mm 010 UV Haze MRC Brass Ring. Always attached to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The lens cost me $2400. I am protecting it!
All I know is ...every time I shoot with it and pull the images up on screen from my 5D III...I say
.."This photo is so sharp, I can't believe this is a f*#king zoom lens!!!!!" ....so I am protecting the lens and getting great images. You bareback riders that scratch your lenses ....so sorry. (BTW..I never said that when I owned version I of the lens...and it was the lens..not the filter).
I have B&W filters on all of my lenses...my lenses all cost a LOT OF MONEY..but I will occasionally take the the filter off of a wide angle to shoot as I think that at extreme angles of view the filter can cut down sharpness...I should do a test some day....but I doubt that I could truly tell the difference. For normal and tele lenses...I know I can tell no difference between high-grade filter and no filter. IMHO it is just academic for me. ...but everyone has their own opinion.

 

[RLPhoto]

Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.

 

[RS2021]

Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.

I don't use them much myself ... but I know many do and swear by it. Is this because you feel there is no perceptible change whatsoever in high-performing lenses or you have made your peace with the potential trade off for possible protection? And, I did say "potential" trade-off.

 

[RLPhoto]

Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.

I don't use them much myself ... but I know many do and swear by it. Is this because you feel there is no perceptible change whatsoever in high-performing lenses or you have made your peace with the potential trade off for possible protection? And, I did say "potential" trade-off.

I want to protect my front element from cleaning, scratching, chemicals, abrasives, small meteorites from space or anything else from touching it. A UV filter already saved my 24L II once and will continue to use them.

I cannot distinguish IQ loss from the filter, B&ws are that good.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Does the 70-200 II vignette with the F-Pro at the widest setting?
I remember Neuro saying something like that, but can't remember for sure :-\

 

[Loswr]

Does the 70-200 II vignette with the F-Pro at the widest setting?
I remember Neuro saying something like that, but can't remember for sure :-\

Actually, I didn't test at 70mm, only at 100mm. But there, the F-Pro did cause a slight increase in optical vignetting (there's some natively, of course). I switched to an XS-Pro for that lens.

 

[PeterJ]

I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.

 

[M.ST]

I don´t use UV filters or other protective filters. I use only Pol-, ND- and GND-filters.

 

[infared]

I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.

Any particular brand?

 

[Zusje]

I use a Hoya HD, and I have noticed vignetting at 70mm on the 5Diii, just thought it was the lens on FF but perhaps it is the filter, will have to try it without and see :-\

 

[pwp]

Thirty years experience has taught me to use UV/protective filters on every lens at all times. Over time filters have taken knocks that have prevented damage to front elements and to the filter thread which is surprisingly easily damaged. I replace the UV/protective filters every few years as they degrade with fine scratching from repeated cleaning with occasionally less than perfect lens-wipes like handkerchiefs, shirts, ties, a best-man's coat tails, tea-towels, tissues or whatever falls to hand when you need an instant fix. I don't worry too much when the shot of the day beckons...the filters are relatively cheap and user replaceable. Even the front element of a 300 f/2.8 is deliberately not an optical lens, it's relatively inexpensive to have replaced by Canon. So use your shirt if you have to.

Tests I have done using new, high quality filters show no discernible IQ degradation when compared to filterless. Optics scientists with too much time on their hands may have tools to prove a difference, but in the real-world of day to day image making, experience has proved to me that it's always best to wear your protection.

-PW