UV filters on a Canon 100mm Macro

<p>Good evening!<br>

Okay, so I'm one of these people that religiously screws a UV filter to the front of every lens; a good quality Hoya item that will - in theory - minimise loss of quality, but allow the odd bump and scratch because I am still a little wet behind the ears. Right or wrong, that's what I do.<br>

My question for today comes from the fact that (**very excited** *EVERSO EVERSO EXCITED!*) I am about to buy a Canon 100mm Macro lens! Yay! So - does it matter if I just slap a cheap UV, or even a cheap skylight on this lens due to the nature of the photography, and the fact that UV light may not play such a naughty factor in interfering with nice pictures?<br>

Advice, as always, very gratefully received.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>[[so I'm one of these people that religiously screws a UV filter to the front of every lens]]</p>

<p>Sorry to hear that. I guess we all have our faults....<br>

;)</p>

<p>[[so - does it matter if I just slap a cheap UV, or even a cheap skylight on this lens]]</p>

<p>Cheap filters degrade image quality. I can't see any reason to use one on a fine macro lens. </p>

<p>I will use the same type I have been using all along then - getting that close to subjects with an exposed element freaks me out a little!<br>

Maybe I should relax and not bother with the filters, but I do want some protection, you know? I have already been saved once when my 2 year old daughter got sun cream on my filter (which destroyed it, by the way) and that would have seriously done for my lens at the time had I not been using it.<br>

Hey-ho - I'm happy to be a screw-on weirdo for now.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to hear that. I guess we all have our faults....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yay! So - does it matter if I just slap a cheap UV, or even a cheap skylight on this lens due to the nature of the photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me yes it does. I use UV's only when near hazards like water, sand, etc. For protection I use hoods instead. Even the best filter is still a piece of glass in front of the lens. Even the best one will degrade IQ to some degree. For some people that minor difference does not matter. Hell, some would not even notice if you put dirty hockey plexiglass in front of their lenses. So it's all very subjective. But if I were to use filters I would definitely go for the best ones.</p>

<p>I've never bought a UV filter in my entire life. Lens while working + cap when not working, works for me:) I suppose a UV filter probably has its value, but I want all the information the lens/camera can give me. Might be silly, and actuallly once while I was flossing I got crap on a lens, no UV filter.Big chunk of meat from my tooth, scary...</p>

<p>It was awesome, the pic turned out and God personally thanked me for not using a UV lens. And I turned the peice of meat into a statue for my ant farm...:) Kidding...</p>

<p>That all said, I clean my lenses with whatever I'm wearing. Socks work well if you have a bathroom close by. If not your shirt is awesome.</p>

<p>Point is, lenses break when you drop them, but unless you are in volcanic ash or fart a lot in your bathroom with your camera in your hand, protective glass is not needed:):)</p>

<p>If you don't need UV filtering - and you don't - just get a high quality clear glass filter. They are available, and filtering UV light is completely non-productive on DSLRs.</p>

<p>Putting a cheap filter on your L lens is like putting $5 recap tires on your Porshce - why did you get that Porsche, again?</p>

<p>And, of course, you really don't need a "protective" filter on your lens anyway.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>And now for the opposite opinion. All my lenses have good quality uv or protective filters on them. I've shot test photos with and without the filters and can not see any difference. And over the years, I've removed some crud from the filters that didn't end up on the lens. On the other hand, a cheap and/or non coated filter can deteriorate image quality. Go with a good quality, multicoated one. I've been using the Hoya HD ones lately.</p>

<p>Barnaby,<br>

I would recommend you use the lens hood for protection instead.</p>

<p>1. I particularly use a filter for protection on my 100/2.8M more than on any other lens and I use a quality filter – I suggest you use a quality filter if you decide a filter is necessary.<br>

2. The suggestion to use the lens hood for protection (as an alternative to a filter) is not as applicable for the macro lens as for other <strong><em>telephoto</em></strong> lenses.<br>

The two main reasons for both these points are the same.<br>

If a Macro lens is being used to its potential one might be using rings with it, (very close and the hood needs to be removed).<br>

Or laying on the ground crawling around chasing lizards . . .<br>

At ground level the sticks and twigs easily get beyond the protection of the lens hood:<br>

<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11925332-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Barnaby:</p>

<p>Have you seen the 100 macro lens?</p>

<p>The reason I ask is that the front element is already recessed. Add a hood, and it will be very hard for something to scratch it. If it gets dirty, wipe it off. Modern front elements are surprisingly hard to scratch. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"At ground level the sticks and twigs easily get beyond the protection of the lens hood"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>William, I'm not sure what you mean by "easily get beyond". The lens hood of the 100mm macro is a good 7 cm deep and in my experience not only offers excellent mechanical protection, but also helps to keep those close twigs out of the optical path.</p>

<p>Maybe “can get beyond" is better phraseology.</p>

<p>Understand that <strong><em>I am NOT saying</em></strong> that the hood does not offer protection.<br /><strong><em>Nor</em></strong> am I saying “DO NOT USETHE HOOD” - (which I think you might have thought I was meaning) . . . in the garden <em><strong>I DO use the hood</strong></em> and the filter as well. And yes the HOOD is good for levering the twigs aside. I do that too.<br />I AM saying, that because of the circumstances we (I) often use a macro lens - the hood does not offer <strong><em>as much protection </em></strong>as (just as examples) when using the 100/2 or the 200/2.8 or the 85/1.8 for indoor sports.</p>

<p>Crawling around the garden it is easier to brush or move sideways into a bush where a small branch might find its way into the front to the lens hood - that scenario is not too difficult to visualize I am sure, especially when one's mind is focussed on following a lizard or butterfly or bug . . . that's all I am pointing out.</p>

<p>I am not arguing that you shouldn't use the hood, but I am just arguing the specific point you made which was: "use the lens hood for protection <strong><em>instead." </em></strong><br>

Please note my phrase <em>"(as an alternative to a filter)"</em> reiterated your use of the word "instead"<br>

<br /><strong>My point being that </strong><strong>"instead"</strong><strong> is less applicable to the macro and its uses, than suggesting “use the lens hood instead” if we were discussing another Telephoto lens and their usual and common uses, that's all.</strong><br /><em>Does that make better sense?</em><br /><em> </em><br /><em>WW</em></p>

<p>That second last para should not be in bold . . . too late to edit it now . . .</p>

<p>I guess one does whatever helps their comfort index. For many years I used UV lenses on all of my cameras. Since I have gone digital, circa 2004, I do not use them at all. I am sure there are times when they are useful, but I may have gone to the other extreme. Except for my Canon 100 mm Macro lens, I have a polarizing filters on all my lenses. They remain on except when I am taking interior shots or it is dusk or low light and I need an extra f stop or shutter speed. When the combination of ISO, F stop and shutter speed doesn't seem best, off comes the filter. I use MRC or the best HOYA polarizing filters. OC, I use lens hoods most of the time too. No, I don't use the filters for lens protection, but rather I find them useful in the bright light of the Sonoran desert. </p>

If you want to add a protective filter to any lens then use the best you can.

 

Uv is not and issue for digital cameras, but flare is see the protective filter FAQ here

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/Protective_Filter_FAQ.htm

 

An additional issue with the 100mm macro is adding filter stops you mounting a macrolite flash, to do this you will

need to add a macrolite addaptor ring.

<p>@ William<br>

Yes, that makes sense.</p>

<p>@ Roger<br>

A polarizer would certainly be my last choice for a filter to use permanetly. Not only does it suck up quite a bit of light, but it can also shift the colour hues noticably, and not neccessarily for the better. After all it is an effect filter.</p>

<p>I used filters many years back in my film days. One day I decided to stop using them and never looked back. These days I use my lens hood for protection and don't miss the filters at all.</p>

<p>Which 100/2.8 macro are you talking about? And are you going to be using it with a macro flash? If not, then with either the 100/2.8USM or the 100/2.8L IS USM, the hood alone provides reasonable protection, but I am another of those who always use high-quality protect (not UV) filters, and the many tests I have done with an ISO chart have never shown up any perceptible loss of IQ. Because I often use the MR-14EX I cannot in any case rely on the hood for protection. I have recently upgraded from the USM version to the L IS USM version of the lens. The USM version has the mounting ring for the flash built in, but because it takes 58mm filters, you can't use flash and filter together. What you have to do is put a Macrolite Adapter 58 on the front of the filter, and then you have the inconvenience of not being able to fit a lens cap securely. The L IS USM version takes 67mm filters and does not have the flash mounting ring built in. So in any case if you use flash you need the Macrolite Adapter 67. That screws onto the lens or onto the front of the filter, and there is no vignetting caused even on FF with that combination, and the good news is that the MA67 has a 58mm female thread on the front allowing a 58mm lens cap to be fitted securely.</p>

<p>ANSWERING THE QUESTION POSED:</p>

<p>Yes, it does matter. A cheap filter will reliably degrade images, irrespective of whether there's any UV haze or sunlight shining on the front of the lens. I say this as someone who protects her lenses with GOOD filters. A bad coating (or no coating) will produce ghosting of specular highlights and will reduce the contrast of the image overall, and the float glass used in the cheapest of filters will also degrade sharpness.</p>

<p>I feel you don't need a lecture on whether or not to use filters, especially since you politely suggested you don't want one.</p>

<p>------------------------------</p>

<p>For those inclined to lecture the OP about his choices, I'll relay this anecdote: I was doing some photography in Yellowstone and one day found that I could no longer clean the "dust" from my front filter. In fact the filter had been etched by volcanic ash. The filter was ruined, but the $1200 lens underneath it was perfectly fine. I was of course very relieved I had used a protective filter. I don't think a hood would have helped me much. You might say I should use a filter only when anticipating such hazards, but I honestly didn't anticipate that hazard. Stuff happens, and it's hard to anticipate when, what, and how. If I had only used my protective filter occasionally, it wouldn't have been at that moment I really needed it.</p>

<p>And then there are the times when a lens cap has fallen off the lens in my camera bag... and when I've fumbled a lens cap... and worse, when I've even forgotten to put the cap back on before dropping the camera back in my holster bag. (Yes, I'm absent-minded sometimes). I know these sorts of things NEVER happen to other photographers. NEVER!</p>

<p>If I were doing macro photography, I think I might be concerned about sticky pollen and bugs spontaneously taking flight into my lens. I also have a somewhat amusing image in my head of some bug bouncing around inside a hood for a couple of return strikes. Dunno... Maybe insect exoskeletons aren't hard enough to scratch lens coatings. I don't often do macro work, so I wouldn't know.</p>

<p>Pollen? You're worried about pollen and bugs landing on the front element?</p>

<p>To counter your anecdote: I've had pollen on the /rear/ element of my 50mm lens when I used it reversed and got too close. Cleaning it was a trivial task and the lens came away from the experience completely unscathed. </p>

<p>As a counter-point to both our stories, how about a test:<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only filter worth using on a macro lens is a polarizer. Other than that I don't use any other filter.</p>

<p>Rob, the oft-cited "dirty lens article" is something that really should have been written by KR. It's for entertainment value only, and no serious photographer would take it seriously. One would obviously see a quite few serious image problems with the lens stopped down.</p>

<p>Put another way, I invite you to ship me all of your lenses. I would be happy to convert them all into miracle lenses, such as featured in the article. I'll even rub them with bugs, twigs, and pollen for you, AND I'll pick up the return shipping, just for the pleasure of having done the good deed. Please PM me if you're interested.</p>

<p>I agree with Ron Hartman. +1! And if you ever photograph spitting cobras in South Africa or sneezing babies in your living room you will be glad you've purchased a multi-coated UV0 filter. And BTW some of us still use our lenses on EOS film bodies as well.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Look, never mind the palaver about the ills of poor quality filters. The real answer is that if you want to use protection filters (UV is not really needed for digital) good ones are better, but there's no evidence that filters that cost as much or more than the lenses they're on (an exaggeration, but not as much as it should be) are necessary either. I have both B+W and Hoya multicoated ones, and can't see any significant degradation with either of them. (for an objective comparison of Hoya to bottle bottoms see my post at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WWb7 )<br /> However, the sort of place where no filter at all should be used is precisely in relatively close-up work of the macro sort. Too many chances of additional reflections, etc. in this kind of setting.<br /> However, outdoors--in inclement conditions--maybe a good idea, accepting the inevitable contradictions of the use of them.</p>

<p>[[no serious photographer would take it seriously]]</p>

<p>Good thing the same could be said of your response, Sarah. I'm glad to see you're still able to completely and totally miss the point.</p>