Filter did its job and saved my lens... Now to replace it? 77mm

[aesco48]

<p>Hello...</p>

<p>The Canon UV Haze Sharp Cut filter on my 28-300mm IS L saved the lens... Now I need to replace it... Should I go with Canon filter or another brand? Suggestions?</p>

<p>I noticed Canon has a UV and a UV Protect version... Is the protect version have a thicker/taller rim or anything?</p>

<p>Thx<img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/407194_10100396503890008_18709104_47759106_46252_n.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="480" /></p>

[paddler4]

<p>Your question will start the usual filter wars: some people saying that you should not use a filter, others saying that you should. I won't venture into that. However, I would only buy a multi-coated filter. This applies to any filter, not just a UV filter.</p>

<p>I do use UV filters sometimes for protection. I generally buy Hoya HMC or S-HMC. Check here for reviews: http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html.</p>

[glennpollockphotography]

<p>Hoya multi-coated UV. You can spend more, but it won't do anymore!</p>

[glennpollockphotography]

<p>Hoya multi-coated UV. You can spend more, but it won't do anymore!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>B+W, Heliopan, Hoya, Sigma, Canon and Nikon Filters are what I use. With the exception of the Canon which is a drop in filter, the rest are multi-coated. They are all about the same. Just spend your money on a proven name at the lowest price. Take the filter off for night images where there will be ghosting. Of course, the front element will be exposed to potential damage in that case.</p>

[john_merriman1]

<p>I have been using Canon UV Haze filters to seal Canon zooms (as recommended by Canon). I may be naive in trusting Canon filters over more expensive filters but they seem to be of high quality and I haven't had any problems. On the other hand I haven't tested them against more expensive filters.</p>

[lester_wareham]

Canon filters are not multi coated afaik. I use Hoya or b+w, even in these brands you need to ensure at least 3 layers

preferably 5 or more layers.

Some time ago I did a protective filter FAQ which might help

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

[dave_kim2]

<p>I use only multicoated filters, the Hoya HMC and the B+W MRC, the B+W's are a little more than the Hoya's but lot easier to clean.</p>

[aesco48]

<p>Thank you... Looks like I am going to buy two Hoya S-HMC, one to replace the broken one and once to replace the Canon UV one I have on my 10-22mm... I really like night photography so sounds like I should get a multi coated one.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Buy insurance instead. Its a filter that protects ALL your gear, and it doesn't degrade image quality.</p>

[pto189]

<p>You can choose the Hoya 77mm DMC Pro1 Digital Multi-coated UV Filter at Amazon for $41.99. However, <strong>Hoya old designed filters are difficult to clean.</strong> New Hoya filters such as the Hoya 77mm HD (High Density) UV filter for Digital don't have cleaning issue. You can buy it at Amazon for $72.99 or at B&H Photo for $77.79. There are cheaper Hoya multicoated filters. Many photographers use B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M). Amazon is selling this wonderful filter for $88.<br /></p>

[aesco48]

<p>Oh man... Choices choices.. I saw this one BH for $55: <strong>Hoya 77mm Ultraviolet UV(0) Super Multi-Coated (S-HMC) Glass Haze Filter </strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/94134-REG/Hoya_X77UV_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Super.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/94134-REG/Hoya_X77UV_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Super.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/94134-REG/Hoya_X77UV_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Super.html">H</a>ow is that one?</p>

[aesco48]

<p><strong><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5157732">Nathan</a>... I am not a pro all I have is a 50D, 28-300mm, 10-22mm, 50mm and the kit lens....</strong><br>

<strong>Got a suggestion of an insurance company I should look at? Thx</strong></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>An edge-source crack did not likely protect your lens from a front impact - the impact most likely hit the front edge of the metal ring. Using your lens hood would also have prevented this damage, probably cost less to replace (if it broke at all), and additionally offer flare protection.</p>

<p>If you believe that you need a "protective filter," purchase the highest quality "non-filter filter" you can obtain. UV filtering provides no benefit with DSLRs, and you don't want to put a sub-standard filter on the front of that L lens the you paid so much for because, we presume, you value optical performance.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[aesco48]

<p>Oh yea, forgot to mention... The damage occurred while in my Fastpack 350, the lens cap also took a BIG portion of the energy and is thus deformed.... Fully loaded backpack fell off a chair while traveling.<br>

I have the OEM lens hood.<br>

"UV filtering provides no benefit with DSLRs"... Wow... The UV filter wont help while shooting landscapes, like in the Sahara desert?</p>

 

[randallfarhy]

<blockquote>

<p>"UV filtering provides no benefit with DSLRs"... Wow... The UV filter wont help while shooting landscapes, like in the Sahara desert?<br>

Not "really"-any filtering benefit it provides can be duplicated in post processing, especially if you're shooting RAW.<br>

However, It will provide some degree of protection against sand and dust (front element) in that environment, for which I'm a proponent-though it will increase the chance of flare, which can show up as a lack of contrast. Protection filters are one of those things you either believe in and use, or don't. My 70-200 2.8 took a piece of gravel to the front element that left a tiny nick, even with the lens hood in place. I had just removed the polarizer and didn't put the clear one back on due to a finger smudge and time constraints.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm with G Dan on this one, it looks like all your "protective filter" did was put lots of broken shards of glass right next to your front element. I use filters on some lenses, the 16-35 needs one to be environmentally sealed, and I often need that, but I am wary of filters for this very reason.</p>

<p>DSLR sensors have their own UV filters on them, that is why an additional lens mounted one is of no UV reducing benefit. Obviously on film cameras they do have that beneficial effect.</p>

[aesco48]

<p>All i can say is that as a Mechanical Engineer, based on my engineering judgment and the condition of the filter and the lens cap... if the liter would not have been there the lens would have suffered at least a bent outer ring/bezel.<br>

So if the concensuse that i shoulf get a no filter filter? If so. Can some one recommend me a specific no filter filter that will just offer the front element/lens some protection.</p>

<p>Thx</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Can some one recommend me a specific no filter filter that will just offer the front element/lens some protection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's called a lens hood. e.g. <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=rubber+lens+hoods&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13426007289389915143&sa=X&ei=5eJDT9ShEuy10QHQ5IypBw&ved=0CF4Q8wIwAQ">http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=rubber+lens+hoods&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13426007289389915143&sa=X&ei=5eJDT9ShEuy10QHQ5IypBw&ved=0CF4Q8wIwAQ</a></p>

<p>What we really need is obviously an air bag with some sort of deceleration, proximity and velocity sensor to trigger it. Either that or don't drop the camera.</p>

[nwphotog]

<p>Andres, . . .you have proven, through your misfortune, what I and many others have advised people to do - protect that front element. OK, so the cracked filter was close to the lens. This is much better than than front element or filter ring becoming damaged. A $70 dollar filter vs a $2400 lens should be a no-brainer. </p>

[aesco48]

<p>Bob, I have the lend hood that is specific to the 28-300mm.</p>

<p>I want to have some type of extra protection on the front.<br>

Robert L.... Totally agree!<br>

So lets pretend its now for my 10-22mm. Without a filter on it the lens is not sealed and would not last more then 2 min out in the desert.... What should I put on it to seal it?</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Sorry, I can't help myself, but there is so much erroneous information flying around this thread. First, and as others have noted, the filter didn't do anything here save perhaps saving the filter threads from being bent or deformed. While shooting, this can easily be prevented by a lens hood. In a bag, I use padded neoprene hoods as the Canon caps are worthless and tend to fall off in any case. </p>

<p>Second, if you trash the front element, the lens itself isn't trashed. For most lenses, a new front element is a couple of hundred bucks, or in other words, not much more than a good filter. The equation is of course complicated because having a busted lens in the field is a PIA and can be a show stopper, but generally, the cost of a UV filter far exceeds the cost of a front element replacement times the (really low) probability of having to replace it.</p>

<p>Finally, for all of the money that we spend on filters, we could actually insure our gear and not worry about impact damage, theft, etc... There is a whole lot more to a lens than the front element.</p>

<p>If having a filter is the only way you will be comfortable enough to use your gear, then by all means, get one. However, for the less paranoid among us, the cost of filters can be better spent elsewhere.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Andres,</p>

<p>As I already said, I use a UV filter on my 16-35 when I want it sealed. If you want a specific recommendation, then get a Hoya HMC UV-0. Why? <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">Because these guys tested them all</a> and found it to be the best/least worst depending on your opinion.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I've never understood using UV filters if you're not shooting where there's a real problem with UV. I've never seen a definitive demonstration of the value of filtering UV at "normal" altitudes.</p>

<p>However, because I work in environments with a lot of flying liquids (typically blood, sweat and alcohol), I do use filters on my lenses, but I use the Hoya multi-coated clear filters. I haven't been able to see any significant differences in my tests with and without the filter. I also use a lens hood, partly as protection because I sometimes get knocked around while shooting, and also because of overhead lighting at a lot of events.</p>

[djolk]

<p>I use filters instead of lens caps. They take up much less space then hoods.</p>