Which protection filter for 70-200mm F2.8 L IS...?

[davebell]

<p>Hi all,<br /> I would like to purchase a high quality UV / Protection filter for my 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. The purpose of the filter is to protect the front lend element, and will stay on for 95% of the time. Of course I want a high quality filter to put in front of this top quality lens. I am consider the following:<br>

<br /> B+W 77mm 010 MRC UV SH Filter (£70)<br>

<br /> B+W 77mm 010 UV SH Filter (£40)<br>

<br /> Hoya 77mm HMC Haze UV Filter (£50)<br>

<br /> B+W 77mm 007 MRC SH Protection Filter (£72)<br>

<br /> Hoya 77mm SHMC Pro-1 Digital Protector (£60)<br>

<br /> I would appreciate any opinions from first hand experience.<br /> Thanks in advance.</p>

[eric_popul]

<p>Wonderful UV filter test:<br /> <br /> http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html<br /> I think the program removed the link i sent ... ooopsssssss its there as a link ... but anyway go to lenstip dot com and find the UV filters test...its great ! and you will find many of the filters u are looking at reviewed ...</p>

[sbp]

<p>I use B&W F-Pro filters on all my lenses. They fit well, hold lens caps well, and i have never noticed any degradation in IQ. On the 70-200, it is the 77mm UV Haze 010 F-Pro, about $85 at B&H.</p>

<h1 ><br /></h1>

[petrana_batik]

<p>Where would you be shooting? A multicoated filter will interfer less (they all rob you out of something, be it color casts, flare, ghosting, etc-- don't buy the marketing crap), but will be harder to clean. If you're shooting outdoors in a hostile environment, a simpler, cheaper, and easier to clean (and replace) filter would be a much better match.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>In my experience BW MRC filters are not nearly as hard to clean as some people make out (I do fine with a blower, microfiber cloth, and lens pen) and are virtually invisible in most lighting situations. Sometimes I will take them off if I am shooting into the sun, as the flat surface can reflect the sensor back into the lens—but the MRC helps in this regard.</p>

<p>Filters are a weird animal. The two schools of thought seem to be cheap & replaceable, or expensive & optically negligible. I'm in the latter camp since I notice degraded image quality with some (especially poor) filters, and even an expensive filter is much less expensive than a scratch to the front lens element.</p>

<p>One thing to consider: UV/Haze is outdated for digital. The sensor doesn't react to UV the same way film does, so it's a waste of technology. Better is a pure-design "protection" filter with hydrophobic coating. But let price be your guide; if one is cheaper than the other, just stick with that.</p>

<p>Petrana makes a good point with regard to serious sea spray or dust storms, etc. It's one thing to have a high-grade expensive "leave it on always" filter for protection, but sometimes it makes better sense to own a "sacrificial" filter for especially bad conditions.</p>

<p>It's up to you to know in what conditions you'll be using your gear, how careful you are about keeping the front element pristine, what your budget is, etc. Good luck!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I recently bought a B+W F-Pro 010, also from B&H. It's seemed like a perfectly good filter, but its performance in the tests eric cites isn't all that good. Fortunately, aside from that filter, all my other purchases have been either Hoya Pro-1 or Hoya HMC. I have to say I've always loved the Pro-1 filters. They look practically invisible to me -- more so than the B+W. However, these tests show the Hoya HMC filters are just as good, at a fraction of the price. Very interesting!</p>

<p>I have to laugh at the Tiffen results. I always hated Tiffen glass, but they seem to have gotten almost respectable in recent years. I had thought their product might be substantially improved from the window glass they sold back in the 70's. However, I see from the tests that their UV filters still perform about like window glass.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Save your money and spend it on insurance. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>I haven't used protective filters for over 30 years. I just don't think they are necessary and on that lens you have a long lens hood that is going to protect it from anything hitting it. But if I was going to choose one, it would be the BW, I didn't see where that test data did any analysis of lens quality, just UV protection. I actually shot through the glass of a couple of doors recently and got very sharp images, but had some old filters-hoyas as I remember--that could ruin a shot. Not saying these will, but no filter will give the best results.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Interesting thing about the test is that they stated the digital sensor does respond to some UV wavelengths in a non-trivial manner, so perhaps UV/Haze filters aren't completely outdated.</p>

<p>The test does include other factors than UV reduction; in fact, UV reduction was only 1/4 of the points considered per lens. Looks like a decent test IMHO. Better than subjective "reviews" of filters.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>That lens comes with a nice, deep lens hood that will provide great protection, especially if you use a lens cap when possible.</p>

<p>Some of my other thinking on this question is <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">posted here</a> .</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>A “protective” filter can only provide protection against things coming straight at the

front of the lens. If you’re shooting in a situation where you might be expected to flinch from

what’s coming at you, such a filter makes sense. Archetypal examples include sea spray from

pounding surf, gravel from pounding hooves, and blood from pounding fists.</p>

 

<p>Such dangers are, for most photographers, vanishingly rare, and so a filter provides no protective

benefit.</p>

 

<p>Filters — even the best — are also very common sources of image degradation. The

best filters cost about as much as a replacement front lens element. And a broken filter can easily

scratch the front element and its threads can jam and destroy the threads on the lens.</p>

 

<p>Therefore, for most photographers, protective filters are a bad idea.</p>

 

<p>Hoods, on the other hand, provide excellent protection against virtually all common dangers lenses

face. And, they often enhance image quality and are fairly inexpensive. It is wise to have a hood on all

lenses at all times.</p>

 

<p>Lastly, lens caps provide superb protection. Have one on the lens whenever you’re not

shooting.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I shoot a lot of swimming with a 70-200 2.8L. I shoot on the deck in bare feet(damn near fell in with camera and lens but someone grabbed me). I sometimes use a filter to keep the lens from getting splashed with chlorine contaminated water(although when I swim workouts I once in a while ingest a choking mouthful of chlorine contaminated water down the wrong pipe; being water boarded is no joke).. Other than that I don't use filters. I have full replacement value insurance instead.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>18 years shooting, zero filters, no problems. Don't use them and don't like them. v/r Buffdr</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ben, yes, excellent filters are rumored to destroy images. However, take a good look at the test images for the best filters (see link above) taken under some very challenging conditions. If the "unfiltered" and "filtered" images were reversed, would you honestly know the difference?</p>

<p>Also, be honest: Have you ever fumbled a lens cap? Have you ever gotten some sort of scary goo on your lens, e.g. from a toddler's hand? Has your camera ever taken an errant swing while hanging around your neck with the lens cap off? Has a cap ever come off your lens inside your camera bag, lens bag, camera holster, or whatever? Stuff happens. It maybe doesn't happen to you, but it does to me. ;-)</p>

<p>And the argument goes on... ;-)</p>

[anov]

<p>It does affect the image. On ideal light, with hood maybe not so much, if any. In a light drenched room, more so. But like everything else, life is about compromise. Maybe most time I'm willing to risk of not getting 100% quality due to filter for the peace of mind, other times I'll take off the filter.</p>

<p>Regarding filter quality, I'm sure this one is high quality</p>

<p><a href="http://maxsaver.net/bw-f-pro-gold-filter.aspx">http://maxsaver.net/bw-f-pro-gold-filter.aspx</a></p>

<p>and it's only $250 for the 77mm plus shipping. How much does that front element cost again?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>Such dangers are, for most photographers, vanishingly rare, and so a filter provides no protective benefit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main danger to my lens is my fingers, and they're still around, just waiting to put a greasy signature on the front element. So sorry, beg to differ.</p>

[ferensen]

<p>Use the lens hood. Don't ever use a filter. Period.</p>

[sbp]

<p>And the argument that has been beaten to death continues.... <br>

Just two comments. For those who shoot in environments where mud, blowing sand or salt spray, etc. exist, filters offer protection beyond what the hood provides. Some contaminants are highly abrasive and, personally, I would rather run the risk of scratching a filter than a front element. Also, many Canon L lenses are only weather proof if you add a front filter to complete the sealing. </p>

[markonestudios]

UV filters have saved both my 28-105 and 24-105L lenses from that big lens paradise in the sky. My film camera once slipped off my shoulder while I was handling a second body. It fell onto gravel and guess what broke. Yup, the filter. And <i>only</i> the filter. And yes I had my hood on, but the impact was sufficient to shatter the glass :) 2 years ago, my 24-105L slipped while I was in a moving train. It fell headlong onto the train floor. Admittedly this time I had the hood on, reversed. Guess what broke... The filter. <i>Only</i> the filter.

<p>So yeah, others' views may vary, but I never leave my lens sans filter. So far no client has come back to complain about a 'degraded image' ;-)

[steve_wagner1]

<p>If you're a nature shooter the idea that a filter provide little protection on deeply recessed, hooded lenses is ridiculous in my opinion. Dirt, dust, salt water, water water, condensation, sand, woody debris, etc. Just look at the surface of the filter after a couple years. That's what your lens would look like.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I'm sure that if you put a filter onto a lens and do measurements on an optical bench you can measure the optical degradation. And maybe a cheap filter will flare before a better filter or lens without a filter would flare. But I spent 15 years in newspaper work and always had a skylight or UV filter -- didn't matter which one for my purposes -- on every lens because I never knew where I was going to be next. Poolside, at the beach, out in the rain/sleet/falling snowflakes landing on the lens, fires and accidents, canoeing through a swamp, little children with poking dirty fingers, etc. Published thousands of photos and never once had an editor tell me a shot wasn't usable because I had a filter on the lens. I respect those who want to get the absolute sharpest image possible and therefore don't use a filter. But for me the protection factor outweighs any optical loss.</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Another vote for the <strong><em>Hood only</em> </strong> approach! The coatings make most modern lens easier to clean and are optimized for color reproduction. The main thing to consider is shooting directly towards a light source and introducing flare. Finally, how many expensive 400mm - 600mm lenses have filters over the objective end?</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Mark Anthony Kathurima... why would you assume that (1) if the filter breaks then (2) if there is no filter that something else will break? It's a logical fallacy and not really borne out by the physics of an impact. </p>

<p>The filter is by far the weakest portion of a filter/lens assembly, especially as the filter ring is easily bent or warped which then breaks the filter glass. However, being the weakest part of the assembly, the failure of a filter tells us very little about the strength of the lens. Quite likely, most falls that result in a broken filter would not result in a broken lens. But if it makes you feel better then by all means buy one.</p>

<p>Brett Cole... how exactly does your filter look after a couple of years? My lenses all look fine. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you're a nature shooter the idea that a filter provide little protection on deeply recessed, hooded lenses is ridiculous in my opinion. Dirt, dust, salt water, water water, condensation, sand, woody debris, etc. Just look at the surface of the filter after a couple years. That's what your lens would look like.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are precisely the conditions in which I do the majority of my shooting: ocean spray, light rain, snow, desert sand and dust. I never use a UV "protective" filter. Haven't for years. Have had none of the problems about which you speculate.</p>

 

[jonsjons]

<p>I just sold a few Nikon DX lenses to go full frame, and I'm glad that I protected all of those lenses with Hoya SHMC protective filters for the past couple of years. The front elements of those lenses were pristine, while the filters on them definitely were not. YMMV.</p>