EF 16-35 f4L IS Owners - Did you buy slim filter UV/Protector for it?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
T

Triggyman

Sep 10, 2013
96
0
Hi Everyone:

I am 99% certain to add my final lens for the foreseeable future by tomorrow - the 16-35 f4L.

For the fine folks here who already own that lens, have you purchased a UV or Protector filter (slim) to complete the front seal as recommended by Canon?

If yes, did you get the either UV or Protector (clear) filter? Which one is better? The slim B+W isn't really that cheap.

If no, what's the reason?

Thanks. G.A.S. isn't cured with the 24-70II from 3 weeks ago...I say "sc**w saving money this Christmas, I want it..." :'(
 
T

Triggyman

Sep 10, 2013
96
0
Finally brought my new baby 16-35 f/4 home and bought a Hoya HD slim UV filter with it as the BW mentioned in this thread was out of stock at my favorite store.

I believe shelling out an extra hundred bucks (Canadian) for a filter is good cheap insurance along with the hood, knowing that it would at least protect the front element from knocks against pointy corners, and prevent dust and water to enter the lens through the front, etc.

Thanks for the replies in this thread.

Now for some extreme angle shooting ;D
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 91053

Guest
I don't have the 16-35 F4 (saving for one!) but I do have a number of Canon lenses ranging from the 17-40 to the 800 F5.6 L IS.
In answer to your question about did I buy UV/Protector filters, yes I did! What a complete waste of money! I learned a lesson there but it cost me! Mine are gathering dust.
If you want mine you can have them for the price of postage, but being an honest person, I would have to state that the only thing you will be getting is poorer IQ by putting more crap between you and the subject.
As far as I can gather the 16-35 is an excellent lens, as I said it is on my will but soon list, so why would you want to spoil it?
 
Upvote 0
R

Ryan85

Nov 16, 2014
343
0
johnf3f said:
I don't have the 16-35 F4 (saving for one!) but I do have a number of Canon lenses ranging from the 17-40 to the 800 F5.6 L IS.
In answer to your question about did I buy UV/Protector filters, yes I did! What a complete waste of money! I learned a lesson there but it cost me! Mine are gathering dust.
If you want mine you can have them for the price of postage, but being an honest person, I would have to state that the only thing you will be getting is poorer IQ by putting more crap between you and the subject.
As far as I can gather the 16-35 is an excellent lens, as I said it is on my will but soon list, so why would you want to spoil it?
Click to expand...


I disagree with you about protective filters. If you buy cheap filters and put them on expensive glass it's goint to hurt image quality. If you stack filters it can hurt image quality. But with quality filters (there not cheap) I've never had a image quality problem. If you don't want to use protective filters there's nothing wrong with that. I've always used clear filters for protection. With digital you really don't need the uv. If you want to weather seal the front element you need a filter. Say for shooting a water fall or ocean where you have water spray it's important to me.
 
Upvote 0
T

Triggyman

Sep 10, 2013
96
0
Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...

I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.

I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element. ;)
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 91053

Guest
Triggyman said:
Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...

I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.

I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element. ;)
Click to expand...

Which lenses? I have never had dust ingress into my 17-40 or 24-105. I have had them quite a while (also the 17-40 was far from new when I bought it back in 2005) - zero issues with waterfalls and shooting in coastal spray.
If others wish to spend (waste) their money on these things then that's fine - it keeps people in work! Don't be fooled into thinking these filters will improve your photography or the life of your lenses - they won't.
I posted merely to try and help others not to waste money, degrade IQ and increase flare. I did not want others to fall into the same trap as I did, but if you insist that they help then go with it, I did for a while but they don't - I learned...............
 
Upvote 0
slclick

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
johnf3f said:
Triggyman said:
Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...

I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.

I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element. ;)
Click to expand...

Which lenses? I have never had dust ingress into my 17-40 or 24-105. I have had them quite a while (also the 17-40 was far from new when I bought it back in 2005) - zero issues with waterfalls and shooting in coastal spray.
If others wish to spend (waste) their money on these things then that's fine - it keeps people in work! Don't be fooled into thinking these filters will improve your photography or the life of your lenses - they won't.
I posted merely to try and help others not to waste money, degrade IQ and increase flare. I did not want others to fall into the same trap as I did, but if you insist that they help then go with it, I did for a while but they don't - I learned...............
Click to expand...
personally, filter use for me depends on the lens. For instance, I would never use it on my 35 1.4 for any chance of image degradation. However, I will always use filters on my macro lenses because they are used outdoors and regularly have plants, bugs and other objects striking them. Why you would risk the front element is beyond me. So the list goes on for my other glass, it depends on if they are being used at risk or not.

Being completely against filter use is a shooters prerogative but with quality optics like B+H and certain Hoya available to us to use when the situation calls for it, my take it to use common sense. Theres been a lot of name calling and childish behavior around here in the past when these threads come up so I hope we can rise above that sort of thing in this topic.
 
Upvote 0
Coldhands

Coldhands

Sep 5, 2014
157
1
London, UK
Interesting article from lens rentals where they disassemble a 16-35 f/4
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart

Near the end, they show that it actually has a rubber gasket around the moving front element. Of course this won't be a perfect seal, and if you're planning on using the lens in conditions with a lot of dust/rain/spray then it's probably wise to add a filter for extra sealing. However if you don't plan on using it in these conditions, then a filter probably isn't worthwhile.

In my experience, the problem that exists even with high-quality filters is that they triple the number of glass surfaces that acquire dirt,smudges, etc and must be cleaned fastidiously, especially when shooting toward light sources. That and it just makes swapping in a polariser or ND a bigger pain. Hence why I have stopped using them entirely.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
Replies
59
Views
35K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Home
Forums
Media
Menu