70-200mm 2.8L (Non IS)

[adam_mueller]

<p>I got this item today! Whoopppee! :-)<br>

Beautiful lens, I can see what all the fuss is about. I have recently been on quite a few nature and sports shoots so thought this would be worth it.<br>

I currently have a Jessops UV filter mounted to my 24-70mm 2.8L although I wanted to buy two new filters for both of these lenses, literally to protect it nothing else.<br>

Can anyone recommend some filters I can buy to protect both these lenses? I just want something that will literallly protect it nothing more.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>The 70-200 has a deep lens hood that should naturally protect the front element. You could use about any UV filter, without noticeable degradation of your images. Some here have experienced some unusual flare with cheaper, non-coated filters. Are you set on using one?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I don't use a "protective" filter with this lens, nor with the 24-70. <br>

Unless you are gonna be in mud or sea spray don't see the need -- as was said, it's got a pretty nice, deep hood already. It's an *excellent* and versatile lens! One of Canon's best.</p>

[adam_mueller]

<p>So i'm looking at a coated UV filter if I want one? It does have the big hood, but this is really just in case. I also have a thing about cleaning the lens every once in a while and dont really like touching the actual lens.<br>

Yh Ken I love it, its absolutely amazing! Can't wait to take it to a few football games. From what i've used of it tonight (I'm in the honeymoon period at the moment lol) it has taken some absolutely captivating images. I'm actually thinking of using it as my portrait lens now.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Don't listen to anybody that tries to tell you to either use one or not, do what you want. This link should help a lot..........</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html</a></p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>B+W has some very good but fairly expensive 77mm UV filters($85). They are made of brass as well as being optically neutral. I never knew how important the brass housing was until I dropped my lens recently and that filter saved my lens from serious damage. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>use the hood. It will protect from stray objects. Aside from that, the 70-200mm have a pretty good coating that makes them quite resistant to scratches.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I'm in the group for "using the lens hood," but if you must get a "protection filter," then spend the money for quality like the B+W.</p>

<p>I very seldom use a filter for protection, but "to each his own!"</p>

<p>I went through the using UV filters progression for lens protection many years ago. Back then by buying cheaper (usually the cheapest UV filters) filters, and I started seeing the effects on the image, then I progressed to the better filters like the B+W's ( I own a few), but at times still continued to see some ill effects. I don't use them anymore unless as Ken Papai indicated.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Don't waste your money on any UV filter unless shooting in driving sea spray or sand.</p>

[adam_mueller]

<p>Ok, But still I am pretty conscious about any contact with the lens (Ie cleaning fluids etc), not unless you guys can recommend a cleaning workflow?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Adam,</p>

<p>Like I said, don't listen to anybody else's opinion on this, if you want the security and peace of mind that a filter can bring you then you will probably take more pictures and push it a bit more. Besides, if you do get some damage on the front element none of these guys are going to help you pay for it!</p>

<p>There are very good reasons for going either way with "protective" UV filters, I use them on some lenses in some situations, and not on others. People who have used them from day one on their lenses definitely get top money for them on eBay.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>What's wrong with listening to expert advice Scott? I think Adam can filter everything and make his own decision. LOL.</p>

<p>Lenses are tools to be used -- I use mine in all sorts of conditions and eschew "protective filters" when not needed. Shooting without a lens hood is a common rookie mistake. I don;t baby or coddle my lenses and don't care about their resale value as I buy them and use them until I wear 'em out. :)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>Nothing is wrong to listening to expert advice, trouble is that is in very short supply on the internet for free :-).</p>

<p>On this issue there are as many "experts" for as against, as I said there are very good reasons to do either, I do both. Personal experience will come to the fore, but if anybody has a preference one way or the other, and Adam did express one by asking the question, telling him he shouldn't doesn't help, especially if he damages his lens. Again that can be argued both ways, lenses can be damaged by broken filters!</p>

<p>There is no right or wrong, sometimes it is a benefit, sometimes it appears to offer none, but my main point was, if using one makes you more confident in sticking your lens out and using it, then use one. My only real advice would be always use your lens hood, if you use a filter or not, a reversed lens hood (a very common sight nowadays) does not look cool and does nothing to help your glass.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Scott, not sure I really follow you on this. It is common practice for stores to automatically try and sell you an expensive UV filter, as you know. Now Adam knows that there is a school of thought that considers this all a waste of money and that, on some occasions, it may cause flare/image degradation when having no filter will not. Perhaps he was unaware of this often passionate debate, but now he knows.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robin, I am not passionate either way, does that make me weird?</p>

<p>Clearly Adam wasn't sold an expensive filter when he bought his lens. My experience has been that many people who use filters don't use lens caps, for sure if you do religously use your hood then lens caps are a pain with lenses/hoods like the 70-200 ones.</p>

<p>It really comes down to personal feeling given the pros and cons of both options, both are valid. But if you have an inclination to use filters, and I assumed Adam was by the simple fact of asking the question, I was merely saying don't have your opinion swayed by the other side, at least until you have tried both out.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Adam - I have owned this lens for many years and I love it. More recently I added the 70-200 F4 LIS as a more portable lens when I am hiking / travelling. I love the IQ of the non IS F2.8 (I found it shrper than the MkI IS lens) and use it extensively for sports.<br>

I am a UV filters kind of guy as over the last 25 years I have broken two in the mountains and I am sure that they also saved me a few scrateches. Except on wide angle zooms they do not cause any IQ issues as long as you get good ones. I currently like the Hoya DMC Pro1 multi coated filers as a good price performace balance - a 77mm one is about $70. The B&W filters are a great alternative.<br>

The debate on filters is religious and people's perspective depends on what they do. Since I take my lenses up mountains and shoot ski racing etc... I like protecting the lens. You can always take the filter off. With the 70-200 F2.8 I have never needed to as the lens hood and narrow angle of view prevents reflections and flare caused by the filter. On the 16-35 F2.8 II I tend to use the filter as an expensive screw on lens cap - it works for me.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Adam - I have owned this lens for many years and I love it. More recently I added the 70-200 F4 LIS as a more portable lens when I am hiking / travelling. I love the IQ of the non IS F2.8 (I found it shrper than the MkI IS lens) and use it extensively for sports.<br>

I am a UV filters kind of guy as over the last 25 years I have broken two in the mountains and I am sure that they also saved me a few scrateches. Except on wide angle zooms they do not cause any IQ issues as long as you get good ones. I currently like the Hoya DMC Pro1 multi coated filers as a good price performace balance - a 77mm one is about $70. The B&W filters are a great alternative.<br>

The debate on filters is religious and people's perspective depends on what they do. Since I take my lenses up mountains and shoot ski racing etc... I like protecting the lens. You can always take the filter off. With the 70-200 F2.8 I have never needed to as the lens hood and narrow angle of view prevents reflections and flare caused by the filter. On the 16-35 F2.8 II I tend to use the filter as an expensive screw on lens cap - it works for me.</p>

[jim_j2]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Ok, But still I am pretty conscious about any contact with the lens (Ie cleaning fluids etc), not unless you guys can recommend a cleaning workflow?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I very rarely use cleaning fluids. and only when absolutely necessary!<br>

A good large "rocket blower," lens brush, and clean dry microfibre cloth is all that is required most of the time. On occasion, a little moisture from your breath maybe necessary.<br>

ALWAYS make certain that you've blown any and all particles off the lens surface before wiping with anything. Any hard particles will scratch the lens coatings!<br>

When I change lenses (and I do so often), I strive to keep exposure of the lens rear element to a minimum. I will position the lens with it resting on the capped front element and will have the rear lens caps loosened and ready to be removed on the lens that I plan to attach. I will usually inspect the rear elements of the lens to be attached when I loosen the lens cap. If there is any particles, I will hold the lens with the front element pointed up and use the blower (a couple of puffs) on on the downward pointed rear element, then return the lens to it's resting position, and cover with the rear cap.<br>

I will then remove the lens that is attached to the camera body, resting it on it's capped front element. I may blow a couple of puffs into the downward pointing lens mounting of the body. I then lift the rear cap from the lens that I'm attaching, and place it on the lens just removed. Then attach the other lens to the camera body.<br>

I will then secure the rear lens cap and secure the lens that I have just removed in my bag.<br>

I will then inspect the front element of the lens I have just attached by removing the lens cap, and blowing away any particles, attach/reverse the lens hood for use, and put the front lens cap in a pocket, and I'm ready to go!<br>

I usually change lenses in close proximity to my bag, but I have had times when I may carry the second lens in my pocket. If that's the case, then I will have previously done the preparation, checked & blown off the rear elements. I also find it necessary to blow off the front lens cap (that has been in my pocket) before returning it to the lens.<br>

I usually always have "a lens" mounted to the camera body and seldom store the body in the bag with the camera body cap attached unless traveling abroad, but I do keep an extra body cap in my bag in addition to the one on the Teleconverter.<br>

In short, I find that minimizing any accumulation of dust is the best routine preventive maintenance. I will about once every six months give my lenses a thouough inspection and cleaning as necessary unless something obvious shows up in my images.</p>