what filter for my first "L" Lens

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajd2k8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
A

ajd2k8

Guest
#1
Good evening all,

i will say hi as I'm not new just this is my first post.

wondering what filters people use to protect there lenses if any...

I'm really undecided on what type of filter i need i have just purchased the 17-40 L so i know i need a 77mm filter and i know i need a top quality one as there would be no point putting cheap glass in front of it..

so what do you guys and girls do?


any help appreciated.

thanks
 
#2
I'm a big fan of Hoya and B+W. Just put a B+W UV filter on my new 70-200mm. I only use them for protection though, as UV filters rarely improve image quality (IMHO).

Other filters, particularly circular polarizers, are not recommended for wide angles. I wouldn't put a polarizer on anything wider than a 24mm lens. You get some really odd looking light patterns otherwise.

Hope this helps!
 
Upvote 0
#6
pierceography said:
Exactly the same filter I purchased for my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. Would never dream of covering an expensive piece of glass like that with a cheap filter.
Click to expand...

For the 70-200 II, I'd recommend the XS-Pro mount - the standard F-Pro mount causes a slight increase in vignetting.
 
Upvote 0
#10
neuroanatomist, thanks thats settled me aswell i didnt know if that was the case on this one..

im not a photography n00b just wasted my money on crap equipment, going full frame next year so trying to just get L or better lenses now.
 
Upvote 0
#11
I tend to only use filters in situations where the protection is needed. When I do, I have several B&W / Heliopan filters that I use. I also have several of various brands that came with used lenses or I bought years ago when I did not know much about the varying quality.
I have so many that I have a 3 drawer storage cabinet that has overflowed. Probably 100 or so. What suprises me is the owners who have a B&W filter on a old low value canon lens like a 35-70. The filter is likely worth more than the lens.
 
Upvote 0
#13
crasher8 said:
And that juicy tidbit is the only good thing to come out of selling my 10-22 when I went FF. (I plan on getting a 17-40 and have an extra B+W filter lying around for it.)
Click to expand...
You should lose very little when selling your 10-22, used, they are about the same price as a 17-40. I am not a big fan of the 17-40 on FF, but if stopped down, its fine. Perhaps mine was just a poor copy, it happens. It wasn't bad, just did not seem to inspire me.
 
Upvote 0
#15
ajd2k8 said:
Good evening all,

i will say hi as I'm not new just this is my first post.

wondering what filters people use to protect there lenses if any...

I'm really undecided on what type of filter i need i have just purchased the 17-40 L so i know i need a 77mm filter and i know i need a top quality one as there would be no point putting cheap glass in front of it..

so what do you guys and girls do?


any help appreciated.

thanks
Click to expand...

I like B+W, good quality and easy to clean. I think they might have ones that are different now, but a few years ago for sure, Hoya were a nightmare to clean, some sort of weird surface, if you go Hoya I'd verify that their new ones are easier to clean and make sure to get that particular newer model.

You don't need UV, clear is fine, clear sometimes costs more though anyway.

A circular polarizer can be very nice to have.

Make sure to get all of them with the MRC coating.
 
Upvote 0
#16
I use and recommend the Hoya HD Clear. Nothing against B+W, I haven't tried them. But, I have tried cheaper Hoya's with dissapointing results. The HD series is their best and noticably so. It's easy to clean and, from my experience, no noticible degredation in image quality. I use this filter on my 70-200L mark II and 17-55 (in part to keep dust out).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/648155-REG/Hoya_XHD77PROTEC_77mm_Hoya_HD_Clear.html

One caveat. I have not found a protection filter that I like for my 35. Under some conditions, like shooting birthday cakes, filters add flare. It seems to be a factor of the small diameter curvature of the front element and that it is deeply recessed. Light seems more prone to reflect between the front element and the back of the filter. Of course, the deep recess and small diameter of the front element reduces the need for a protection filter. Add a rubber lens hood and I feel it's sufficently protected. If the lens takes a nasty bump, the threaded hood will help prevent denting the threads of the lens.
 
Upvote 0
#17
ajd2k8 said:
Cheers well iv just purchased a B+W 77mm UV MRC

is this good yeah?
Click to expand...

yeah that's good ;D

If conditions are safe and you are shooting lots of back lit stuff you might want to take them off, especially on wide angles as even the best filters, add more reflective layers and it's a flat bit of glass in front, although it still might not be too bad most of the time.
 
Upvote 0
#18
This is an interesting discussion. I have always shied away from buying filters (UV) since so many people say they are a waste of money since the modern lens have their own protection. I'd like to hear more about their value.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Mt Spokane Photography said:
crasher8 said:
And that juicy tidbit is the only good thing to come out of selling my 10-22 when I went FF. (I plan on getting a 17-40 and have an extra B+W filter lying around for it.)
Click to expand...
You should lose very little when selling your 10-22, used, they are about the same price as a 17-40. I am not a big fan of the 17-40 on FF, but if stopped down, its fine. Perhaps mine was just a poor copy, it happens. It wasn't bad, just did not seem to inspire me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 17-40 fine on crop, crap on full. http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/compare2corner.jpg That is F9 corner of my old 17-40 on a 5D II. Center was sharp, so it wasn't the focus being off. Thing made full frame sorta pointless.
 
Upvote 0
#20
A good filter is generally going to cost as much as repairing the front element -- and even the best filters are still going to degrade image quality (even if imperceptibly in ideal lighting conditions).

A lens hood, on the other hand, is always going to improve image quality, plus it offers superior protection to all the most common dangers lenses face.

There are only two scenarios where a filter makes sense for protection. The first is for weather sealing for lenses that require it (and, obviously, only in adverse weather conditions). The second is where you yourself require eye protection: rodeos where the horses are kicking gravel at your face, seaside where the waves are crashing on your head, that sort of thing.

Of course, polarizing and neutral density filters are a completely different story.

Cheers,

b&
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

neuroanatomist
Protective filters - redux
Replies
2
Views
248
kaihp
K
jimim
Canon R6 Mark 3 and 430EX 2
Replies
2
Views
538
jimim
jimim
K
Is removing the filter from the 48mm PL-C drop in filter holder ok?
Replies
4
Views
2K
TexPhoto
TexPhoto
E
[COMMUNITY PROJECT] Deriving comprehensive guidelines for shooting the sun without sensor damage
Replies
14
Views
691
EOSR7MkII
E
D
Katharine Burr Blodgett: Inventor of non-reflective coatings for glass?
Replies
20
Views
1K
AlanF
AlanF
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu