Use clear fliter on L Lenses?

<p>Hello there,<br>

I have two L lenses and I want to use clear filters to protect them without affecting the quality of images. Is this possible? What would be the best lenses for that purpose? Are there any brands that are better than others? Should I be looking at the UV filters?<br>

If this is important, one lens is the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM and my use is primarily insect/flower closeups and also portraits.<br>

The other lens I have is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM; for that one I have a polarizing filter, but often I remove it and I don't want to scratch/damage the lens glass. I use it for everything else.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>In 20 years I've never damaged the front glass on a lens, I use the hood as a buffer for protection.</p>

<p>do a search, and you will find endless discussions of this on this site and others.</p>

<p>I have used UV filters for protection for decades and have ended up tossing a few that saved a lens. I use them virtually all the time with my macro lenses (including the one you own) because you have to get close and can't use a hood.</p>

<p>If you are going to use a UV filter for protection: (1) use a good, multicoated one, and (2) take it off if the light source is in front of the lens and you are getting flare or haze. Following those two rules, I have never seen noticeable degradation. (I have when I violated those rules, particularly both at the same time.) If you want to read posts from people who argue the opposite, just search this site for UV filter.</p>

 

<p>A protective filter for macro work? Gee, sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'd recommend: </p>

<p>Hoya HMC<br>

Hoya Pro-1</p>

<p>Both are high quality, multi-coated, optical glass -- just like the numerous elements in your lenses. Neither will degrade your image quality.</p>

<p>I started out with filters on my lenses and then tossed them for good. I always use the lens hoods and that gives me more than enough protection. It is a very personal choice - people are divided on this topic right down the middle.</p>

<p>I don't use filters either, but I always keep the hood on. Some will say filters degrade quality, others will say it doesn't. I say there wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't something there. The degradation will be small, but it is also determined by the filter you use. If you want best quality don't use one at all, if you want great quality with a filter get a good one. Just remeber you get what you pay for. B+W and Hoya are both good. I've also heard that the glass on L lenses is harder than normal lenses and doesn't scratch easily, therefore they don't need filters for protection as much.</p>

<p>Long, unresolved argument continues.</p>

<p>As a compromise, I might suggest getting decent filters like the best Hoya ones, although if you can afford the more expensive B+W type filters, why not?<br /> Then use the filter for situations where sealing of the lens is important (I think Canon used to recommend such filters as a part of weather-sealing some lenses).<br /> When doing something really critical in a non-threatening environment, remove the filters just in case, as I always do.</p>

<p>I still have seen no real, variable controlled tests demonstrating that filters hurt or not. You'd think that if some filters were better, their makers would post controlled tests proving that. You'd also think that if they weren't better, the makers of the cheaper ones would post their tests. The absence of such published tests does make me suspicious that <em>all</em> filters degrade image quality a little, but I confess I just can't see it with the lenses I have and the filters I've used.</p>

<p>So far the only test I have seen is my own. I did establish through my own empirical tests that a Hoya HMC was superior on an L lens to a bottle bottom, despite what some filter snobs claim (<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WWb7">link</a>)</p>

<p>If the circumstances dictate to YOU that a protective filter is needed -- then by all means go for it for your own peace of mind. 100% chances a filter -- ANY filter -- will degrade the quality -- it's called "physics of light". However, how detectable is that degradation?</p>

<p>ALWAYS use a lens hood. If you use L lenses and you often shoot without a lens hood then you're forever a rookie tyro looking like an enthusiast tourist with a Silver Rebel + kit lens.</p>

<p>All the info you could ever ask for, with the proof of good testing techniques, <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html">is here</a>, <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">page 4</a> has some very interesting results too.</p>

<p>I say it is your lens do what you want with it.</p>

<p>Unless you regularly shoot a sealed-body camera in extremely hostile conditions, I think that adding a filter for "protection" purposes is generally a poor bet and has the potential to produce some image degradation in some circumstances. <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">I've written more about this here.</a></p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>If you want "clear" filters, I'd go for quality UV filters.</p>

<p>All my lenses, including the L glasses EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, EF 17-40 f/4L, and EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro, have a Tiffen UV filter on it. Image quality is not lost at all, and the lens stays in mint condition without even letting dust get on the glass.</p>

<p>The 17-40 and other L lenses require a filter to make them weather-sealed. Does this suggest Canon think a (good quality) filter doesn't make a difference? </p>

<p>Just curious, folks... I admit I don't do much macro work, but I do know it involves poking your lens very close up to flowers, bees, and other stuff that might unpredictably contact the front element of the lens. Is this not one of those situations in which a lens might benefit from protection?</p>

<p>I think it's interesting that there are endless discussions about whether a high quality filter adversely impacts image quality, and yet there is zero discussion (nada, zip) about the relative merits of lens designs with more or fewer lens elements. Why is this? I mean what some people are arguing here is that another piece of glass is somehow going to hurt the image quality in a way that the dozen other pieces of glass in the lens or the glass AI/IR filter over the sensor will not. I mean... come on, people! Isn't this navel gazing to the extreme? The OP just wants to protect a nice lens from bugs and goo. It's not all that complicated.</p>

<p>You know, there was a time... before the Internet(s)... when these silly arguments weren't even waged -- a time when nobody questioned the utility of a protective filter. Maybe we were all just stupid back then.</p>

<p>Mike have you used a Canon filter? They are utter garbage.</p>

<p>Sarah, I remember a few heated discussions at the camera club, long before the internet, between "filter practicalists" or FP's and "no filter purists" the NFP's :-)</p>

<p>Of course the FP's are practical, pragmatic buisness minded right wingers who see the NFP's as anti big filter buisness lunatics who have lost touch with reality and core values, the NFP's on the other hand see themselves as the only ones who can replicate a true image of the world, just as nature intended, with their several thousand dollar body, their very un-natural lenses with exotic elements and the natural computer programs they use to make their images look so realistic!</p>

<p>Praise the Lord, I wonder if he uses a UV filter on his Leica?</p>

<p>There, I think I've trodden on every bodies toes. Try not to lose touch with the question everybody, it is just a filter.</p>

<p>well what can i say, i'd be one of "no filter purists"... <br>

when i started playing with photography i was told to use filter as it's cheaper to replace it than front element... that time i used to shoot with - let's name it - brand "a" gear (not to start "which brand is better" argument)... 2 years after i decided to jump ship to brand "b" and i had to buy all new stuff and i decided not to buy filters and see how it is without it on the lens... <br>

to say that in the simplest way, i use 9 lenses and never got a single scratch on my front element... one day i bought wide angle zoom that cost me €1649 and i got hoya pro1 digital uv filter worth €120 for free... i decided to use it on non paid test photos with some wannabe model and i'm glad it was non paid gig. i got the worst ghosting ever and over half photos were unusable. <br>

after that i tried to replicate the situation in various conditions without filter on same lens and i never got the same horible ghosting as i got with uv on. <br>

so to answer your question i simply wouldn't use filter... as others said - and i strongly believe it also - if you take good care of your equipment, hood is all the protection that you need...</p>

<p>regards,<br>

greg</p>

<p>i just found it as i was browsing through a forum:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wa6d</p>

<p>should be interesting for you :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The 17-40 and other L lenses require a filter to make them weather-sealed. Does this suggest Canon think a (good quality) filter doesn't make a difference?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Weather sealed" lenses are, of course, useless if you don't use a weather-sealed camera body...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The 17-40 and other L lenses require a filter to make them weather-sealed. Does this suggest Canon think a (good quality) filter doesn't make a difference?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Weather sealed" lenses are, of course, useless if you don't use a weather-sealed camera body...</p>

<p>By the way, I'm not a "no filter purist." I'll use a filter (CP, ND) when the value added is greater than the value subtracted.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I just ask myself: if I were to scratch the front end of the lens, would I prefer to replace a $25 filter or pay perhaps hundreds for the lens to be fixed? I had a Hasselblad T* lens that got a scratch on the front glass. The lens isn't in production anymore, so I was quoted $1200 for the element, $200 to install. I'm sure it's not always that extreme of a case, but you get the point. It was actually cheaper in my case to buy another used lens and swap the front element of the one that was cosmetically and mechanically in the best shape with the lens that was otherwise in worse shape but had a beautiful front element.</p>

<p>For another reason to consider no filter, this post is interesting:</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=35461746</p>

<p>This person may be replacing the filter and dealing with a lens damaged by broken filter shards. While a filter might provide some protection in some small percentage of all the possible scenarios that could lead to lens damage, a) it won't protect against all of the, b) it has the potential to create its own damage in certain situations (at least compared to, say, using a hood and/or lens cap), and c) there are at least some circumstances in which it can degrade image quality.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I agree with those who do not use filters for protection, but always use lens hoods. They have protected my lenses very well over the years.</p>

<p>Personally I use uv filters on the front of all my lens. Like some of the previous posters I either use the Hoya SHMC or BW brands. One thing to keep in mind is you can't always use a hood (especially in the occasions you are using a external flash on your camera since it can cause a shadow to show up in the shot). I think if you are using a good muli coated product I don't think your quality will suffer.</p>

<p>the lens hood is the best protection for your lens. unless you are taking a photo of people who are throwing rocks at you, why would you want to stick another piece of glass in front of the lens, that can only ever have a detrimental affect on your image?</p>

<p>Hoya S-HMC filters do not degrade the image at all. No loss of resolution, no introduction of flare, no detectable difference. I protect all of my lenses with them.</p>

<p>I have not personally tested the Hoya Pro1 Digital or HD filters, but judging from the light transmission specs they should be about the same.</p>