UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?

[sagittariansrock]

Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!

REALLY!!!! The train really came off the tracks here. LOL!
I use filters...my prints hang in galleries...people buy them. They don't ask if I had a filter on the lens or not. Its all personal choice. I will continue to protect my expensive equipment. It works well for me. If I put a B&W XS-Pro/Nano-MC on my lens and shoot a test with and without, upon close inspection I can see no difference in the images. The only thing that upsets me is that I can't put a filter on my 17mm TSE....especially because the glass sticks out into the room! LOL!.

There's the wonderpana system.

 

[ecka]

"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

@neutronomist. Talking about sex . Does the fear of STD's make you wear a condom 24/7? (or did? before marriage)
No offense, just kidding .

 

[sagittariansrock]

"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

Once again, this is totally subjective.
First, If I feel the UV filter has no effect on MY pictures (I have more of an effect, and I can't remove myself from the equation unfortunately), why would I bother putting it on and off?
Second, in the environment you describe I would cover my whole lens in plastic because sand getting between the rings is a bigger issue. In real world situation, I see a lot of dust in the air, or the occasional spray if I am shooting close to the water or in the rain. The UV filter is just easier to clean off.

In my case, it is filters 24/7 except when I am using the Lee system. I don't obsess over whether I need a filter or not, it is just convenient to have it on all the time rather than consciously putting it on and off.
I have seen many, many professionals who just put a filter on their lenses and no lens cap when they put them in their shooting bag for quick access.

To cite your own example: barrier contraceptives are useful for more than preventing diseases.
It is unwise to assume what works for one works for every one.

 

[ecka]

"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

Once again, this is totally subjective.
First, If I feel the UV filter has no effect on MY pictures (I have more of an effect, and I can't remove myself from the equation unfortunately), why would I bother putting it on and off?
Second, in the environment you describe I would cover my whole lens in plastic because sand getting between the rings is a bigger issue. In real world situation, I see a lot of dust in the air, or the occasional spray if I am shooting close to the water or in the rain. The UV filter is just easier to clean off.

In my case, it is filters 24/7 except when I am using the Lee system. I don't obsess over whether I need a filter or not, it is just convenient to have it on all the time rather than consciously putting it on and off.
I have seen many, many professionals who just put a filter on their lenses and no lens cap when they put them in their shooting bag for quick access.

To cite your own example: barrier contraceptives are useful for more than preventing diseases.
It is unwise to assume what works for one works for every one.

Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon ) after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG . Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results ). It happens, please stop denying that.

 

[Otter]

I was wondering how adept the factory sealing on an "L" lens at keeping dust out of a zoom lens? I presume they all have the same issue(dust penetrating the lens where the lens has moving parts), whether the lens zooms at the middle(24-70mm) of the lens or at the end of the lens itself(16-35mm). Perhaps the white lenses are a step up in terms of built quality and weather sealing? To me it seems unsatisfactory that something that is labeled "weather sealed" can still allow dust enter the internal parts of the lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon ) after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG . Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results ). It happens, please stop denying that.

I think we are both saying the same thing- it is subjective, and differs from case to case.

I said in MY case it doesn't significantly affect the IQ.

I am sure there are people whose pictures do get affected. And it totally makes sense for them to not use filters themselves, or at least not all the time.However, preaching everyone else not to use it is a bit presumptuous.

Again, in MY case there isn't usually a concern about mud, water, etc. to a huge degree. But then again- few days back I was on the Maid of the Mist, shooting with my 24-70II inside the Optech Rainsleeve (which is great for protecting your camera but not your lens, by the way). I was feeling a lot better with a filter in front even though the 24-70 is water-resistant.

People obsess over little things and start these long discussions, and that is fine until it isn't and there are personal attacks and insults. You mention washing your microfiber cloth- you should see a thread that discusses whether or not you should wash it with regular laundry

 

[mackguyver]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

 

[mackguyver]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time. I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

 

[Dylan777]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time. I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

 

[mackguyver]

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

That's correct, but they are slightly more expensive than the UV ones (supply & demand...), and I have tried both but have never noticed the difference when I've compared them side-by-side. And yes, I do realize the UV coating isn't necessary in the digital era...

 

[sagittariansrock]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time. I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...

 

[Dylan777]

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.

Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time. I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...

With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

 

[Deleted member 68328]

I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

 

[tomscott]

I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

+1 I just bought one for my 24-70 MK! and shot wide open it accentuates the CA to stupid amounts!!! Bokeh looks worse too. Couldn't believe it thought spending good money would be worth it but have to say pretty disappointed with it.

Never shot with filters because they do effect image quality regardless how good they are.

 

[sagittariansrock]

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...

With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.

 

[ahsanford]

And I thought a fresh poll on this might be fun:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21788.0

- A

 

[Dylan777]

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...

With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.

There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though

 

[mackguyver]

True BW clear filter is 007

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...

With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.

There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though

Dylan, the only thing I've noticed is that flare is much worse with two filters, but would agree that sharpness doesn't seem to be an issue, and vignetting is only an issue with certain lens/filter combinations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

Interesting. I use toploaders constantly, and I have all three sizes of the Lowepro Toploader Pro (65 AW, 70 AW, 75 AW). Several of my lenses have XS-Pro filters on them, and I've never had that issue. I use an XS-Pro filter on my 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I've carried that in the 75 AW with the 1D X and 2xIII TC - a very tight fit where closing the zipper is putting a fair bit of pressure on the camera/lens (and the zipper!), still no issues.