? UV Filter diameter for 16-35 2.8L II

[bob.velkov]

Hi there

 

Looking for comments as to filter diameter and vignetting for a Canon EF 16-35 2.8L II lens to be used on a 1D and 1Ds. I am trying to

decide between the B+W MRC slim 82mm and the special overbuilt B+W MRC 82mm with 100mm outer diameter (which should fit under

the lens hood just fine but needs to be special ordered).

 

Thanks

[wgpinc]

I just buy the Hoya Multi-coated filters for Canon lenses. I seriously doubt that you need a fancy 'thin' filter with this lens. A lot cheaper, why stress over small stuff? JMNHO of course.

[scott_ferris]

You don't need slim filters on any Canon lens if you are only using one filter, it seems to be a basic part of their build spec. If you intend to stack filters then you might on the 1Ds not on the 1D.

[serguei_fenev]

Agree with Gil - I use Hoya Pro-1 on this lens with 5D and have no problems with vignetting because of the filter.

[bob.velkov]

I ditched all my other filters and stick to B+W MRC filters. Their F-Pro mount is better than anything else I have seen so

is the MRC coating they use. They are expensive but so is L glas.

 

I was looking as to recommendation which size to get: Regular, Slim or Overbuilt (also called Extra Wide which I believe

only B+W has and eliminates all vigneting also on problematic lenses -

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=218&IID=3952).

 

So it looks like I can stick to regular thickness UV(0) filters even with the 1Ds if I use only one filter at a time?

 

Thanks

[john_hanlon3]

I'm with Gil, B+W filters are a waste of money.

[gabriel_mojay]

Bob - I'm no expert on the subject, but I can safely report that the SLIM version of the B+W 82mm UV filter performs fine on my 16-35 f/2.8 L II when

mounted on a 5D. I haven't noticed any vignetting.

[alan_myers]

A standard thickness 82mm filter will also work fine without vignetting (that's one reason Canon bumped the Mark II version up from 77mm to 82mm). Some thin filters don't allow you to put a lens cap on. I'd avoid those.

 

In fact, assuming protection is your goal, a lens cap and the lens hood will do a far better job protecting the lens than some thin piece of glass ever possibly could. A UV really doesn't serve any other purpose on any modern digital camera (which have a UV filter built in).

 

Hoya Pro, B+W MRC, Heliopan SH-PMC... All are fine and nicely multicoated to do as little degrading to your images as possible.

[colin_james]

Alan Myers wrote:

 

"assuming protection is your goal, a lens cap and the lens hood will do a far better job protecting the lens than some

thin piece of glass ever possibly could"

 

Alan, I'm sorry, but this is just plain out-and-out wrong. I shoot professionally with this lens (and hood) every day and

I can assure you and everyone else that the hood on this lens does ABSOLUTELY ZERO to protect the front

element - ABSOLUTELY ZERO. ZIP. NADA. NOTHING. It's not even debatable (Using a lens cap isn't even worthy of

mention as the "protection" has to be removed prior to actual use for goodness sake!)

 

Even Canon recommend fitting a filter for protection & weather sealing in the manual for the lens.

[bob.velkov]

Colin, you are absolute right that the hood on the 16-35 2.8L do not protect the lens.

 

I am using UV filers on my L-lenses to seal them and don't use any caps at all. Only he filter and hood. Taking a cap on

and off is only time consuming and doesn't seal the L lens as it is not threaded. Thanks much, I will go with regular

thickness B+W F-Pro for my 16-35 2.8L II lens.

[bob.velkov]

Any issues with vignetting while using regular thickness filters on the EF 24-70 2.8L ?

[mendel_leisk]

Nope.

[scott_ferris]

Bob, if it is a Canon EF or EF-S lens with a filter thread on the front you can use at least one normal filter. It seems to be a basic design feature.

[bob.velkov]

Guys, thanks much again!