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

[Vivid Color]

Dear Johnf3f, please provide us with the filter brand and model of the filters that you're talking about that degraded the images of your photos so that we can better understand your experience. I personally use B+ W filters with nano coatings and have found no image degradement to take place. Or if there is one, I certainly can't see it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about using or not using filters, but when you make sweeping statements about filters degrading images, then please provide us with additional specific information so that we can at least avoid those specific filters. And I will confess to a bias for using filters. Years ago, I fell down some brick stairs outside and landed on my SLR camera. The filter was a cracked mess but the lens was undamaged.

 

[Coldhands]

Dear Coldhands, would you please explain what you mean by adding a filter causes the number of surfaces that you have to clean to triple? Am I missing a nuance here or is this an exaggeration? Thanks – Vivid

Sure.

With no filter, you have one surface that gets exposed to the elements - the front glass.
With a filter you now have the front glass, the inner surface of the filter, and the outer surface. Three surfaces.

Obviously that doesn't apply if you never remove the UV filter, but I find that's very rarely the case. In the days before I quit UV filters, I spent a lot of time trying to clean the front of the filter, only to realise that dirt was on the other side. Too much aggravation

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

You should have stated at the outset that you didn't want this to turn into a filter vs. no filter debate – that would certainly have prevented it from happening.

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.

The 'Canon PROTECT' part is a shameless plug, the need for a filter to complete the sealing is not, and that statement is only present in the manuals for a few lenses.

 

[RLPhoto]

Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Dear Johnf3f, please provide us with the filter brand and model of the filters that you're talking about that degraded the images of your photos so that we can better understand your experience. I personally use B+ W filters with nano coatings and have found no image degradement to take place. Or if there is one, I certainly can't see it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about using or not using filters, but when you make sweeping statements about filters degrading images, then please provide us with additional specific information so that we can at least avoid those specific filters. And I will confess to a bias for using filters. Years ago, I fell down some brick stairs outside and landed on my SLR camera. The filter was a cracked mess but the lens was undamaged.

I re-read my post and I think I could have phrased it a bit better! I stand by what I said but it does come across as a bit of a sweeping statement - not my intention.
Firstly I am not anti filers, I wave recently completed my 100mm filter kit at some considerable expense! They have their place in my kit but are only used when necessary, and (as I understand it) UV and Skylight filters are not needed on DSLRs.
The main brand that I used was Hoya as it was pretty much all that was available locally, though I did have a couple of Kood filters. If memory serves the Hoya filters were in the Pro1 and standard ranges. I still use Cpl filters (when needed) from Hoya.
Putting anything in front of your lens is bound to affect image quality, though how noticeable this is depends on the quality of filter and the sort of image being taken also whether the photographer is concerned about it or not! One thing that is unavoidable is increased susceptibility to flare - this simply unavoidable with a flat piece of glass and can significantly limit you shooting options.
I appreciate concerns about damage protection, but having seen the damage that the filter can cause to a lens dropped onto a relatively soft surface (not one of mine thank goodness) it can work both ways.
It is interesting that when Canon introduced their Mk2 SuperTele lenses they omitted the front filter element

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I don't own the 16-35/4, but I use B+W XS-Pro Clear Nano MRC filters as protective filters at the recommendation of other forum members.

 

[Random Orbits]

Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro

+1, especially if you intend to get more lenses. I started with a couple regular thickness filters, and later found out that they vignetted when used on ultrawides. If you have all xs-pros, then you can swap filters and not worry which filter can't be used on which lens.

 

[Triggyman]

You should have stated at the outset that you didn't want this to turn into a filter vs. no filter debate – that would certainly have prevented it from happening.


The 'Canon PROTECT' part is a shameless plug, the need for a filter to complete the sealing is not, and that statement is only present in the manuals for a few lenses.

Thanks Neuro - that supports my understanding of the statement from Canon. If they say so for their product, then I won't mind the expense. As for flare, I can just remove the filter when taking pictures with strong sources of light within the frame (i.e. lamp posts in long exposures, the sun, etc.) 8)

 

[Triggyman]

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.

Thanks for the link - I can see there isn't much dust to go in the lens element(s) chamber through the front, but water might (as far as I can see through the pictures). During a dry and normal day I guess a filter isn't necessary - but some dusty environments (i.e., road/ground dust) and active weather (i.e. snow/rainshowers) I will definitely put one on.

 

[sunnyVan]

I have b+w f-pro mrc which is not the slim version. It works fine without vignetting.

I got a lot of flare with a hoya filter on 17-40 which I previously owned. Then I got b+w for my 16-35. No difference. Flare!! Then I learned to take the filter off when shooting straight into the sun. Problem solved. I just have to remember to put the filter back on afterwards. As for the slim version, I don't see the point.