Filters

[the drunken druid]

I recently purchased a Canon EF90-300mm f/4.0-5.6 non USM Zoom Lens, which at

the time of purchase the vendor recommended using a skyline or similar filter

at all times, (to protect the lens?). Is there a specific reason why, other

than wanting me to part with more of my hard earned cash.

[jcolwell]

Some people use filters to protect the front element, others don't. I don't, except for when I'm in a harsh environment, such as blowing sand or salt water spray. I always use a rigid hood, which offers good protection against a drop, as well as reducing flare, which is its primary roll. Inexpensive filters can reduce image quality (IQ) by introducing flare (if not well multicoated) and by reducing resolution (if the glass is really crappy). A skylight filter has a slight rosy colour cast, while a UV/haze filter is completely colourless. I use B+W MRC 010 UV filters, but only when I need to, not all of the time. You might find a use for a circular polarizer filter, which can eliminate reflections from windows, water and similar surfaces, but it also reduces the amount of light coming into your lens by 2 "stops". Only use it when required by the subject matter.

[awindsor]

is this a 75-300 lens ? I don't think Canon made a 90-300.

 

The filter topic is a contentious topic. The salesman certainly wanted to part you from more of your hard earned cash.

 

Some Canon lenses actually specify that a filter must be used in order for the lens to be properly weather sealed (the 17-40/4L is one but your lens is almost certainly not) but in general it is just personal choice.

 

I have filters on all my "exterior" lenses though I remove them for shooting at night. None of my "interior" or macro lenses have filters. I shoot around the sea shore a lot and there is wind blown spray and rain. I can remove the filter and wash it in the sink. I could not do this with the front of my lens.

 

I certainly would buy a lens hood before I bought a filter. The first will improve your photos whereas the best a clear "protective" filter can do is not degrade them.

[terry_smith2]

Canon does in fact sell a 90-300 zoom in Europe if nowhere else. I'm sure that Google or ebay could give you some info on it. It's mostly a cheap kit lens sold together with the 28-90 and based on the 75-300.I generally do not use "protective" filters except when the weather or other conditions demand it. I've got an old Vivitar 82 MM UV that I use from time to time because it has a yellow cast to it and it has a slight warming effect. I wish I could find more of these in 52, 58, 72, and 77mm sizes as it's sometimes very nice for portraits. Of course I could buy some adapter rings, but I would still have only one filter.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/misc.html#protective">My camera salesperson tried to sell my a protective filter. Should I get one?</a> </P>

<P> As I see it - No. I am doing fine (for 15 years) without any. I think that the use of a protective filter is justified only in hostile environments (e.g. in the middle of a sand storm) where there is a real risk that something will actually touch the lens (water and fingerprints are easily wiped off). And as I'm never in such places I simply use the lens caps when the lens is in the bag and the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lenshood">lens hood</a> <b>at all other times</b> (i.e. when it's on the camera). This way... <br></P>

<P>1. I have the best flare protection. Some mediocre filters actually increase the chance of getting flare. Good ones are pricey.<br>

2. I have better physical protection. <br>

3. I save money of "protective" filters. A dedicated lens hood is cheaper than a good filter. <br>

4. I have best optical results. </P>

 

<P>The only filter I own is a CPL. As I have good lenses (Canon primes), I chose an equally good filter: B+W MRC. If I'd buy a UV filter at some point in the future it will also be B+W MRC. From what I hear B+W are the best. My experience with my CPL confirms this.</P>

 

<P> Also, have a look <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2rP">here</a> and <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml">here</a>. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[pjmeade]

17-40 needs a filter to be weather sealed?

 

I don't remember seeing that in the manual that came with the lens or reading it anywhere else. Can you give more details please?

 

Regards. Pete

[martin_howard1]

The 17-40mm L manual states on page E1 -

 

'Although the lens is dust- and water-resistant, a filter must be attached to the front of the lens for complete protection. (The front of the lens moves during zooming)'

 

Can anyone tell me if there are vignetting problems at the 17mm end when using a standard Hoya polarising filter? or should I get the slimmer 'pro' version.

 

Just got my 17-40 this morning, cant wait to finish work and start shooting!

[jcolwell]

The 17-40L does not vignette with a "standard thickness" B+W MRC UV-haze 010M 77mm filter on a 20D.

[mars c]

it's important that we protect our lens, but first, what kind of camera are you using? digital or analog? a skyline filter or a uv filter reduces blueish haze in the atmosphere that arent apparent to our eyes but captured by the film. a dslr on the other hand, is'nt as sensetive to uv rays and could compensate if necessary with the auto white balance or you could easily edit the image in your pc. i used to use a vivitar uv haze filter, it was cheap and not coated, when i shot with strong light behind the subject using a big aperture lens, it suffered (actually its the owner who suffers) from reflections between the filter and the shiny sensor of my dslr, resulting in what they call ghosting effect and increased flare, but i need to find a protection for my lens, then i found a canon protect lens, it's only purpose is to protect, and it is multi coated, when i look in front of it with a light source behind me, the reflected light is much darker meaning it was bieng absorbed, and that is good. I could not detect any difference in image quality with my canon lens protector on or off. i'm more at ease with it on my lens though, so i'm using it all the time exept when its time to use a polarising filter. the moral is, cheap filters degrade the image depending on the situation. a good quality one is unnoticable and offers protection. a lens hood does offer protection , but it'a different kind of protection, it is much easier to clean the flat filter than the curve front element. i hope this helps.

[agustin.benencia]

I always use filters to protect my lenses. And I can tell that it worth it. Last month my 20D hit the concrete, the lens hit the floor first and the onky damage was the filter. Maybe I was lucky, but I�m still keeping filters attached to my lenses.

 

AGUSTIN

[pjmeade]

Martin, I haven't noticed vignetting with the 17-40 + Hoya CP, but that's on the 20D. I think that as the 20D isn't waterproof, I'll not need get a filter for the 17-40.

 

Regards. Peter

[bobatkins]

The <a href="http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=174">Canon EF 90-300</a> is a "Europe Only" lens, but is sold in the US by a few grey market stores. There's really no good reason I can think of to buy one over the 75-300 since it's typically on a few dollars cheaper.

<p>

A (multicoated) filter isn't a bad idea if you're not very carefull with your lens, but I typically don't use filters (unless I have a good reason to) and I've yet to damage the front element of a lens due to accidents.

[trothwell]

This was with a standard-thickness CP filter (don't recall what brand), on a 17-40, at 17mm:

 

http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20060506-pella-tulip-time/IMG_0823.jpg

 

I see some slight corner darkness; I presume it's the filter, as I had not yet noticed it when not using the filter.

[awindsor]

Sorry Pedro,

 

I see Canon does make a 90-300/4.5-5.6. I just have never seen one. You will be pleased to know that your non-USM lens (released 2003) is apparently newer than the USM model (released 2002). Optically they are, of course, identical.

 

Martin,

 

I don't recall seeing any vignetting with my standard Hoya CP on the 17-40/4L even on unmounted slides. However I have not shot a full frame 35mm body in a while.