Looking for Filter for Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS

[marek_gasiorek]

Hi

I was wondering which filter do you user for those hi end glasses-I want to

mainly protect the lens since during wedding anything can happen and I was

wondering which filters do you use-I was looking at the 77nm B&W and I am

hoping to get some input

Thanks

[mendonphoto]

B+W multicoated. Expensive, but very high quality.

[keith_lubow]

The lens hood. Keep it on at all times. Why would you shoot with anything in front of your beautiful and expensive glass?

 

Keith

[doug_axford1]

I use a cheap $6. filter. My tests show no difference.

 

There you have it: expensive filter, cheap filter or nothing. Don't you love forums? BTW, I've done all 3 and gone back to cheap.

[jcolwell]

I use B+W MRC UV-haze 101M filters on my L zooms, including the 70-200/2.8 L IS, but I wouldn't normally use a filter at a wedding.

[josh_ross1]

I use a B&W filter on my 70-200. You can get them off of ebay brand new for around $40.

[walang_pangalan]

<i>Why would you shoot with anything in front of your beautiful and expensive glass?</i>

 

<p>Because cleaning the crap off a flat, removable, filter is a hell of a lot easier than cleaning the crap off the non-removable, curved, lens?

 

<p><i>My tests show no difference.</i>

 

<p>In some situations the difference is observable. Simple demonstration: take a cheap filter and an expensive filter and use them as mirrors. Reflect the Sun, and notice how the cheap filter has a much brighter reflection than the expensive one.

 

<p>But of course, if you can't observe a difference, then why bother?

 

<p>I use Hoya Super HMC's, though I'm having a hard time finding the 82mm PRO1 "slim" version locally.

[keith_lubow]

If you are using a lens hood, at a wedding no less, why would you have crap on the lens in the first place? Also, crap on your front element need not be cleaned often, since it doesn't effect optical quality as much. The only lens glass I have ever scratched (on accident) was scratched by a shard of glass from a broken filter. I would only use a filter to block UV, color correct, or in foul weather.

 

Keith

[walang_pangalan]

<i>If you are using a lens hood, at a wedding no less, why would you have crap on the lens in the first place?</i>

 

<p>I'll run the risk of the wrath of the forum administrators and repeat myself from an earlier submission today: "shit happens".

 

<p>And my 500/4 lasted two years wearing a "lens hood" 100% of the time, but it needed a good scraping in the end as well. Fortunately, it has a nice, large, flat surface. I guess if one's lenses never leave a studio..

[marek_gasiorek]

The reason I asked this question is because I witnessed one of those moments -Asian wedding Bride and Groom walks from table to table- glasses are raising to toast ?one guests trips while getting up from round table and champagne flies in the air right on to photographers gear-I wasn?t shooting it, I was a guest but I saw him on the back pissed off trying to clean up the mess.

Other time (about 2 years ago) my boss got chunk of Cake on his lens (he got too close to cake fight (Groom +Bride))

 

If you in a studio (Ok) but wedding is a battle field

[hjoseph7]

"I want to mainly protect the lens since during wedding anything can happen"

 

If you own some high-end glass, then I would highly recomend getting a high-end filter. I balked and complained about purchasing an $80 B&W UV filter, until I did a wedding a few weeks ago and noticed how easy it is to knock the lens( Canon 24-70mm F2.8) around. I would say that $80 filter saved my lens about 5 times during the entire wedding. On one of those occasions, I banged the lens so hard against one of the pews inside the church, that I had to actually remove splinters from the filter.

[keith_lubow]

The worst thing that has happened to me during a wedding is that the best shot of the day, I went to put the dark slide back in, and it jammed due to a misloaded sheet. I knew it was a good one, so I put the whole camera into a changing bag, reloaded the sheet properly, put in the dark slide, and was set. You guys make it sound like you are going into a war zone or something...sheesh.

 

Keith

[mike_kim]

I use Hoya Super HMC for my 70-200mm IS. I also have various S-HMC filters (mostly UV and CPL) for 82mm, 77mm and 72mm. The quality is top notch and price is fair.

[colinsouthern]

I use only Heliopan SH-PMC UV slim Filters - extreme quality and (non binding) Brass rings to boot. Even slim version has outer thread so that you can mount additional filters (CP / ND etc). Very easy to clean, and very robust.

[lester_wareham]

The B+W are fine as long as you get the MRC multicoat and avoid the standard ones that are only single coat, same goes for Heliopan; Hoya have three coating grades single, HMC (not bad) SHMC (best). Myself I use Hoya SHMC Pro 1 (Digital) UV(O) as protective filters. The more recent ones have the word digital but they seem to be the same filter.

 

I would avoid a cheap filter, these will probably OK as long as there is no significant backlighting otherwise they can cause flare. Also the very-very cheap filters have been shown to cause softening issues, this is probably due to poor quality glass or poor grinding and polish. You should be OK with the top end of Hoya, Heliopan or B+W, the thing to look for is the specified reflectance. I have a summary of manufactures quoted reflectance here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/FilterData.htm

 

I have done extensive tests with filters to check for flare and ghosting and any detrimental affect on sharpness or AF function, it is reasonable to say in real life situations you will not find any problem, you will find these tests at the following two links

 

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

 

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Filter_AF/index.htm

[doug_axford1]

Those are great tests Lester, seen them before. My point has always been that if I take one of the best Canon lens, shoot one without a filter and one with a cheap filter, then print anything up to 16x20 of each, you cannot tell the difference.

 

I will admit that if people are regularly shooting where relections are possible, then a better filter is called for. Personally, that's not what I shoot and try to advoid it at all costs.

 

Most of us live in the real world and weddings will not be a problem with a cheap filter unless your wedding has test charts. Weddings suffer more from camera shake and focus than cheap filters.

 

If you have the money, sure spend it on a $100. filter. Honestly, my tests on weddings have trouble seeing much difference between a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a cheapie Sigma. I often wonder why I shell out the big bucks on overly expensive lenses. I guess I still have half an ego. They sure make me look like a pro - good thing because I've been one for 37 years.

 

Doug

[William Michael]

I like the questions about `protection` filters: they bring out real passion.

 

My 2 cents: I like a filter `on`, and a lens hood too.

 

I tend toward Mr Axford`s opinion, (I remembered the `A` this time) and in most shooting scenarios, one can`t tell the difference in a 20 x 16 print.

 

Backlighting and Flare et al, however present a different scenario, requiring thought and usually a filter `off` position.

 

The main reason for my filter normally `on` point of view is the filter is easier to clean after I take it `off`, in the sink and nice bath in warm soapy water, warm rinse and hang out to dry.

 

Whilst Weddings are not a war zone, I like clean lenses and I work and live along a windy coastline: sand and salt spray.

 

Isn`t that last sentence strange, is that windy (as in blowing) or windy (as in curved)?

 

And Doug I just about quit after about 30 years: what`s the secret to get the other seven runs on the scoreboard?

 

I use mainly HOYA filters: but hey after 30+ I have a range of goodies.

 

WW

[lester_wareham]

Doug Axford : "Those are great tests Lester"

 

Thanks muchly Doug.

 

"Most of us live in the real world and weddings will not be a problem with a cheap filter"

 

I guess (I don't shoot weddings) the main situation with wedding work as far as filters goes is if you are shooting in dark conditions with a few bright light sources, I suspect this does not often happen much and if it did the photographer would probably try and use flash. I agree in 95% of general photography the filter quality is not important.

 

"Honestly, my tests on weddings have trouble seeing much difference between a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a cheapie Sigma"

 

Unless things have changed much most punters probably don't require large prints so I expect lens and camera resolution to not be important and the main reason for using DSLRs rather than P&S is the response time and noise performance.

 

"I often wonder why I shell out the big bucks on overly expensive lenses ... They sure make me look like a pro"

 

Heh, there is a point here. I have seen some pro/semipro wedding shooters adverts loudly proclaim they shoot 'only with Canon L lenses' as if this is some sort of qualification or assurance of quality. I expect DSLRs make photography so accessible some feel the need to separate themselves from Uncle Fred's camera set-up, lets hope he doesn't have to many L lenses :).

[lester_wareham]

William W (Retired) : "Backlighting and Flare et al, however present a different scenario, requiring thought and usually a filter `off` position."

 

I agree, although it is surprising how much strong backlighting these modern top-end filters can take, personally I don't even worry about it unless shooting night shots or perhaps sunsets.

 

"The main reason for my filter normally `on` point of view is the filter is easier to clean after I take it `off`, in the sink and nice bath in warm soapy water, warm rinse and hang out to dry."

 

This is my philosophy also, although I have always managed to get away so far (27 years) with a huff and a buff with microfibre, except for one or two scratched filters; in those cases just get a new one when you have time and you are good to go with no down time for repair.

[doug_axford1]

This same discussion just came up on DFW pro forum. Pretty well the same answers, most like to spend the big bucks on filters, but seem oblivious to the real reason.

 

I like the 'huff & buff' solution, it reminds me of the smear & rub to remove scratches when printing. We're getting old aren't we?

[William Michael]

>>> I like the 'huff & buff' solution, it reminds me of the smear & rub to remove scratches when printing. <<<

 

I still have a complete set (36) of retouching inks: used last about three years ago, on a 20 x 24 print a child damaged. But I have to admit I have not dodged or burnt nor pushed or pulled in the darkroom for about 5 years.

 

(I think I would like to would another one: Hand printed Black and White might be a niche market in a few years.)

 

 

>>> We're getting old aren't we? <<<

 

I do not do age, (though my knees do sometimes): I just hang around and gather more experiences.

 

Cheers,

 

WW