UV Filter Selection for Three New Lenses

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

I'm fairly certain that I've made up my mind on the three additional

lenses that I intend to buy during the Canon Triple Rebate Days.

I intend to buy the 17-40 f4.0L, the New 70-300 f4-5.6 IS and the

135 f2.0L. My question now is what UV protection type filters should

I buy for each lens. My thinkng is a standard Canon UV filter would

be adequate for the 70-300. I also assume that the standard Canon

UV filter would be OK for the 135 f2.0L. But, I'm not sure whether

I would need an ultra thin UV filter for the 17-40 f4.0L to prevent

any possibility of vignetting. If so, what brand. All comments are

welcome. Thanks.

 

//Chuck

[steve_dunn2]

<p><a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm" target="_blank">The 17-40 does not need a slim filter, even on a full-frame body (you don't mention what body you're using).</a></p>

 

<p>As an aside, <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/" target="_blank">Bob Atkins did a nifty article on how effective various UV filters are at cutting UV</a>; the results may surprise you.</p>

 

<p>I'm not going to get into the perpetual argument over whether you should use protection filters on your lenses; that's been covered eleventy times already and there cannot be a consensus because there are strongly-held opinions on either side. I'm also not going to get into what brand of filter you should use, as that is also a perpetual argument with strongly-held opinions on either side - although I will note that if you want a high-end filter, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who will suggest Canon filters play in that market segment. If you want to research these arguments, there will be plenty of examples in the archives.</p>

[nammyboy]

I only use B+W MRC Filters (MRC = Multicoat). They're top quality, as are Heliopan Multicoated filters.

 

~Nam

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Steve,

Thanks for the input. I will delve into the archives and get a better feeling of the quality of the different brands and people's opinions.

As far as not putting a filter on for protection, I have a couple of grandchildren (4 and 6) that when I have them I like to have my camera along. And even though they know 'not to touch' there's been some close calls of touching the lens area. Without a filter I'd have to clean fingerprints off the lens. I'd much rather clean a filter. Otherwise, I really feel I wouldn't need a filter for protection.

 

And, I apologize for not including my body model, it's a 20d.

Thanks again.

 

//Chuck

[peter_white2]

I recommend no UV protection filter. You don't need any protection from UV. And if you keep a hood on the lens, you're not likely to need much in the way of any protection at all. If you go out sailing and want to keep salt spray off the front element, sure, get a filter. But in that case since you'll not be able to keep 100% of the spray off the filter 100% of the time, I would just use the cheapest filter you can find. The spray will do far more to reduce IQ than the cheap filter will.

[jim_doty]

Chuck:

 

I've used Hoya 81B filters on my lenses for years. They are there for protection, to filter UV light (which can be a problem in some situations, and for the slight amount of warming which was important for slide film but less so for digital. I prefer the multicoated version (HMC). In my experience, the multicoating is well worth the extra cost. I recommend checking out the link above to Bob Atkins article.

 

Happy Shooting!

 

Jim

[mark from thailand]

Gotta say I disagree with Peter "I would just use the cheapest filter you can find" (IF you

decide you need one that is). I bought a 70-200 f4 L some months ago & accepted the

cheapy UV filter from the shop. I couldn't understand the lack of contrast until ... I took the

filter off! Amazing difference! Now I use HOya & love my contrast!

[skipd]

I agree with Peter totally. The reason he suggested using the "cheapest filter" was because that filter would ONLY be installed in super-hazardous conditions which are likely to damage the filter. After it's beaten up, just replace it.

 

I use only lens hoods for "protection" and have lenses that are over 40 years old with no damage to the glass whatsoever. The outside surfaces of the lens have the finish badly worn from use, but the glass is all pristine. You don't need to add two surfaces of flat glass in front of a high quality lens except in really bad situations like blowing sand, dogs that you are photographing that will lick the lens, etc.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I definitely second the recommendation of always using the hoods. I believe the 135's hood is fairly deep, and the 70-300's hood is probably also fairly deep, so they'll be of significant use in keeping pets' noses and kids' grubby fingers off the front elements. The 17-40's hood is not deep; if you want better protection (both physical and from flare), buy the EW-83DII. It's the hood for the 24/1.4, but it fits on the 17-40 and since the 17-40's FOV on a 20D is equivalent to 27mm on a full-frame body (i.e. narrower than the 24's FOV), it won't vignette. The original hood from my 17-40 sits in a drawer where my old film body used to sit after I stopped using it, and the EW-83DII is always on the lens.</p>

 

<p>Keep the lens cap on when not shooting.</p>

 

<p>As for filters, I use a UV filter on my 28-135, which was my most-used lens (and therefore tended to accumulate the most dust, as well as occasional fingerprints when I'd do something stupid like trying to remove a lens cap which I'd already removed) in the film days and is now my second most-used lens. I also use one on the 17-40, which is my most-used lens on my 20D, in large part because Canon recommends it to keep dust out of the gap between the front element mounting and the outer barrel. I have never used a protective filter on my 50/1.4 (its front element is somewhat recessed, and with the lens hood, the front element is well protected) or 300/4 (which also has a deep lens hood). I do sometimes remove the filters when shooting in flare-prone situations, as even the best filter cannot help but increase the chances of flare in tough situations.</p>

[jeremy_mccreary]

Chuck,

 

Greetings from an ex-Charlottean.

 

I'd say your shooting environment clearly warrants a protective filter. Under normal shooting conditions, I mount filters only when I think they might offer a compelling optical advantage, but I don't hesitate to slap one on when clambering around on rocks or shooting in blowing sand or salt spray. Hoods are always my first line of lens defense, but they don't protect against all hazards.

 

IMO, the best choices for pure protection are plain or weakly attenuating UV filters with good multicoatings to minimize the risk of added flare. Hoya's SMC UV(0) would be a good example of the latter. Heavy salt spray favors an uncoated filter, BTW, as salt left on a filter can mar the optical coatings.

 

As you may know, silicon-based (CCD and CMOS) image sensors are inherently very insensitive to UV, so you won't gain much from blocking it -- even in worst-case UV scenarios like altitudes above 10,000' or long shots across water. Film's a different story.

 

More aggressive UV filters like haze filters toss out some blue along with the UV. Since the blue channel's usually the dimmest and noisiest, that's generally a bad deal on the digital side. (On occasion, you may win by cutting a bit of haze that way, because blue to violet are the visible wavelengths most prone to scattering, but that trade-off has to be played on a case-by-case basis.)

 

Hope that helps.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Thanks to everyone who provided great information to my questions.

And Jeremy, I don't know where you moved to... but Go Panthers!

 

//Chuck