Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2007, 2:36 AM   #1
Member
 
Hank355's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Default

I have heard recently that there are purists out there that are against putting filters on good lenses. I would assume b/c they believe that it diminishes quality. I also assume that they mean lens protection filters like clear glass, or the UV filters. I always buy B&W filters, the multicoated UV-Haze ones. A couple of times I bought the Hoya pro filters super mc something, it is very thin and their top of the line filter. But does it diminish lens quality?

One of my main concerns is that I am planning on purchasing the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS, and it is very expensive, so I want to protect the lens, but I also want to maximize my picture quality for this project I am working on. So I am curious as to what all of y'all are shooting with, Lens wise, and what filters are you putting (if any) on your lenses. If you don't put filters on your lenses, can you please explain, in detail, why? I would really appreciate it.
Hank355 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 14, 2007, 3:00 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Hank - you're re-opening a can of worms here

I've got lenses I use UV filters on and lenses I do not. Let me say when I first bought my filters - Hoya Pros I did some testing - there was no discernable QC difference.

But, a majority of my lenses do NOT have filters on them. I take care of my lenses and use lens hoods and I haven't had a problem.

The most recent argument I've seen for using them is to protect the lens coating on your lenses from repeated cleaning. I don't see that as an issue at all. Again, if you take care of your lenses and clean properly (i.e. use a blower first and use appropriate lens cleaning solution when necessary) you won't have an issue with the lens coatings. I take about 30,000 photos a year and I need to use lens solution about once a year on my lenses. So it isn't an issue.

Now, in sandy or dusty conditions I would definitely recommend it. But for normal use I find lens hoods to be enough.

Bottom line - in my experience, I never saw any IQ degradation when using high quality filters. But then again I really stopped buying them as they weren't providing any real benefit either - and with larger diameter lenses the cost gets up there. So, if you want the extra security you get from using one I wouldn't be concerned. But by the same token - unless you're shooting in sandy/dusty conditions I think a lens hood (which is a good idea for flare in addition to lens protection) is enough too.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2007, 12:17 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Same old story :P

For many years I used UV filters for protection with my film cameras. Didn't even think about it. Then I bought two new lenses and two Hoya Pro Digital filters to go with them.

On the 70-300 DO it has a shockingly bad effect. This is well known (now) and easy to find with google.

On my 17-85 I found it vignetted seriously at the wide end, despite it being the most expensive Hoya filter that said it wouldn't!

I thought about it and realised I had never in 20 years of photograpy scratched a lens filter. So I stopped using them and have not had a problem in the 3 years since. Lens coatings are actually very tough, much tougher than some would have you believe.

Having said that I am sure that with most lenses probably 90% you will not see any IQ differences.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2007, 5:13 PM   #4
Member
 
Hank355's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Default

Hey Peri, we have the same lenses! My 70-300mm DO is sitting right in front of me ant on it, I have the Canon UV/Haze filter. I know the lens is faulted for its lack of contrast, but I now wonder if the filter adds to it. I will check it out, thanx! And my 17-85mm I have the Hoya Super MC Pro1 filter. Is that the one you had? B/c I don't get any vignetting at the wide end.
Hank355 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2007, 1:55 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Perhaps I was an early adopter of the Hoya Pro for the 17-85 both the lens and filter had "New" stamped on them in all the advertisements.

Are you sure yours doesn't vignette? Or have you just always used it and are used to the results?

Try some test shots with and without on a plain white surface and see.

I don't have the 17-85 anymore - I sold it with my 20D when I got the 5D+24-105. I'm fairly sure I wouldn't see any adverse effects on my new setup with a decent UV filter, but I don't see the need. I got a cheap 3 year insurance policy with the camera including accidental damage, so I figure "what the heck".

As to the DO check this out...

http://www.fovegraphy.com/UV_70_300DO_E.php

My experience is the same.

And a couple of useful tips pages for the DO...

http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=224053


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2007, 2:55 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Had a DO for 3-4 months, quite capable lens, and used some Russian old fat UV. I've read all the post regarding the issue, and just couldn't to reproduce the problem.

My DO had no noticable difference with Russian UV or not - a leftover from some old Sigma lens.
nidza is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:34 AM.