lesroll Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Sorry if this is a repeat question for long-time folks on this forum. I did a search and didn't think it was too much of a repeat... I just purchased the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS lens and like it so far. I wanted to know if the hood and a filter could be attached at the same time on this lens, and also which filter people felt worked best? Do I need the Multi-Coated? What about the slim size variety vs the regular size filter? Thanks for the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanjay_chugh1 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes, they fit together. I have both the hood and a Hoya HMC UV filter. -- Sanjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 You don't need a slim filter with this lens. Multi-coating will reduce flare from light striking the filter, although the lens has some flare issues of it's own so don't expect miracles. I always shoot with the hood on to reduce flare and provide protection to the lens because mine does *not* have a filter on it most of the time. If you are looking for a filter to provide a visual effect, more power to you. But if you are looking for it to protect the lens, the hood is a better device for most situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Aside comment: >>> But if you are looking for it to protect the lens, the hood is a better device for most situations. <<< Oh . . . No . . . *ducks for cover* :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 The 17-55 has vents under the front retaining ring and tends to suck in dust like a vacuum. A UV filter reduces the suction considerably. A hood doesn't help any... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 "But if you are looking for it to protect the lens, the hood is a better device for most situations." I'm curious as to how this device will protect my front element from sticky fingers - or wet noses - or salt-laden sea air - or the end of a tree branch - or just about anything with the possible exception of some stray light! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 "But if you are looking for it to protect the lens, the hood is a better device for most situations." I'm curious as to how this device will protect my front element from sticky fingers - or wet noses - or salt-laden sea air - or the end of a tree branch - or just about anything with the possible exception of some stray light! Grrr - "Gateway Error" first time around!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesroll Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Follow Up Q: Which UV Filter do I buy? I've heard differing opinions on the $30ish Teffen UV vs the $65 B&W Multicoated. Do I spend high or can I go for a cheaper filter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexdi Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Provided the filter is multi-coated, the B&W won't be much better unless the scene has a lot of point-light sources. Even then, it's the difference between bad and worse. The 17-55 flares a lot already, the filter doesn't help. There are quite decent $10 MC filters. Spending more gets you somewhat better coatings and build quality. While it's conceivable a really horrid filter could affect AF or contrast, I've yet to see one do anything more nasty than flare under poor lighting. DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 "But if you are looking for it to protect the lens, the hood is a better device for most situations." -- Sometimes it's just fun to stir the pot. Well, I did say *most* situations. It generally does pretty good at keeping sticky fingers out, and does very well at protection from wet noses. At least I haven't pressed my fingers or my nose into it since starting to use hoods. Salt air, or any misty air, is the major flaw with using a hood for protection. And then there is the off chance someone will be throwing rocks at the photographer, but I'm not usually that provocative when taking pictures. I still think a hood provides better protection than a filter for most things -- and you guys are all wrong -- again! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 "And then there is the off chance someone will be throwing rocks at the photographer, but I'm not usually that provocative when taking pictures." Been there and it hurts! Watch it on the trails around Diamond Head... Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn nk Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 There are many that firmly believe that keeping a UV filter on this lens at all times reduces the dust intake. I'm not convinced. I've compared the sealing of 24/105 and the 17/55 by inserting a thin piece of cardboard between the barrel and the zoom ring on both lenses. The "feeler gauge" will go quite a bit farther into the 17/55 than into the 24/105 (which is a sealed lens). There is a rubbery feel when the cardboard is pushed into the 24/105. That being said, I put a UV filter on this lens the day I bought it, so I don't know if the filter helped, or if my copy is one of the newer ones that leak less. After 10 months, no dust at all. I believe it's been claimed that the newer copies are better than the first ones that came out, but this could be hearsay with no credence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I've *not* had a filter on mine for the last 6 months and I don't see any dust either. I do have dust in other lenses though. so I know it *can* happen. I did read the article and view the pictures of why the filter could keep dust from coming in through the front of the lens, but I'm not convinced either. The lens grows when zooming and therefore must suck air in from somewhere. If not the front "vents" then elsewhere. Either way dusty air gets in. But perhaps some other ways are less direct and most dust gets trapped before entering all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry h. Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>Any new thoughts on the dust vs. filter issue? I tend not to keep MC UV filters on my lenses, but I have them available. Should I keep one on this lens in particular?<br> Thanks, Larry</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now