This really is a rant, but I would love any feedback.
For a long time I've been using a Canon EFS 17-85 and Sigma 10-20 along with Quantaray UV filters and never had a noticeable problems. However I really think I'll be getting the 5D replacement if it ever comes out (oh by the way I currently have the Canon 40D) so I purchased the Canon 24-105 L and Canon 17-49 L along with 77MM Quantaray filters (that's what my local camera store carries). I was almost ready to return the lens's because they just weren't very sharp. Than after some experimentation I found that the problem wasn't the lens but the filer. On the Sigma that I still use there is no noticeable difference but with the L glass I get a serious blur with the filter.
I have new Hoya filters on order, hopefully they will resolve the issue.
I would love any feedback on filter quality. It seems to me that the quality of the glass in the lens makes a big difference. That is assuming that the quality of an L lens is that much better than an EFS lens.
IMO, if you're going to stick anything in front of your expensive lens, it needs to be the same quality as your lens. Sticking cheap filters in front of expensive glass is kinda like throwing dirt on your windshield. My suggestion is to stay away from filters all together except for polarizers and grads, and then only when really necessary.
Sorry I tend to disagree to some extent. I get out into nature and want to do something to protect my glass. I do agree that it needs to be good quality however, I have learned my lesson in that area.
Sorry I tend to disagree to some extent. I get out into nature and want to do something to protect my glass. I do agree that it needs to be good quality however, I have learned my lesson in that area.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on July 10, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I agree with Bill on this one. Filters are best used to modify the light. Use a lens cap to protect the lens.
Why stick anything else between the image and the sensor when you don't have to? I know a lot of folks keep the UV on for protection, including quite a few excursion clients I've had, but I've been slogging around the steep and rocky boreal forest in some very tough spots for five years and have never so much as scuffed the front element of any lens I own. This includes the Canon 100-400, 400 f5.6, 70-200 f2.8, 100 macro and 17-40.
Granted, I won't own or carry a lens without a lens hood, but leaving lens caps on when the lens isn't in use and taking care with it when the cap is off goes a long way.
I just hate the idea of adding a layer of glass when I don't need it. When I do use a filter, so far it's always a Hoya. Great quality for less then Singh Ray prices (yikes, talk about prices!). Quantaray doesn't make anything worth buying, IMO, but is a cheap house brand for Ritz Photo and gets pushed by those bozos all the time. Hoya, B+W and Singh Ray are typically the high-end filters you hear most people recommending.
Buying a cheap filter is like putting a piece of cellophane over your sensor. My position is, don't put on the raincoat unless it's starting to rain.
The only filters I use are polarizers and GND. I am not in the habit of "protecting" the lens with UV filters. I do protect the lens by ensuring the hoods are on all the time and if stuff does get on the lens surface I clean it right away. The only exception is that when I photograph the geysers in YS I always have the polarizer on to avoid the caustic wet stuff on the lens. I only use the highest quality filters like Hoya. Like Bill said, using cheap filters is like using an inferior lens to begin with.
I work with 3 prime lenses and have a UV filter on each one of them, all the time. The lenses and the UV filters are both made by Pentax. I believe that if I can trust Pentax enough to use their lenses, then I should be okay using their UV filters.
I am very glad for the added peace of mind these filters provide. So far I have not noticed any degradation in image quality when using UV filters.
I used a UV filter on my Minolta 600 F4 for years. I shot with and without it and didn't notice a difference. Since I switched to Canon I already have a small pin mark on my 500 F4.
It happened when a sudden gust of wind came up and something hit the glass before I could cover it.
If Canon had filters for the prime lens I would certainly put one on and rest a lot easier. I
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM
I've been taking outdoor photos since 1985, in all kinds of weather, from the beach of the Arctic Ocean to the top of a volcano in Hawaii. For the past ten years I've been taking photos almost every day, out doors, in the toughest weather and environments the Dakotas can throw at me. I photo inside of grain elevators, I photo grain harvests in choking dust, I photo in blizzards severe enough to kill cattle. I don't use UV filters and think they are silly. I have never once had a mark on any of my lenses because it didn't have a filter. Not once. There was an incident two years ago where I had my camera and Nikon 80-400mm VR lens on a tripod and the wind blew it down a hillside. The camera landed face down and the polarizer filter I had on the lens shattered. This in turn scratched up the lens element. I can honestly say I've never had a lens protected by a filter, but have had one damaged by one. The filter cost about $120. To replace the lens element cost about $80. In effect I had a $120 filter protecting an $80 circle of glass.
I don't rely on a flimsy piece of glass to protect my lenses. I use the plastic lens cap. It is FAR tougher than any UV filter. I also use the lens hood which deflects dirt and objects very well. Again, I have thousands of dollars in pro quality lenses but have never once had a problem from not having a filter. Not once despite use in some very extreme conditions. I too have had problems caused by filters, even multi-coated B+W ones.
Here's a link to Luminous Landscape that talks about the issue. Note one of their points--how many lenses do you see on eBay that have some damage to them? Very, very few. Modern coatings are very tough. Use the lens cap for maximum protection.
I would never use a UV filter for protection when a lens cap and/or a lens hood will do.
Why degrade image quality unnecessarily?
Posted by Bill Chambers on July 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Carson Wilcox said "I get out into nature and want to do something to protect my glass".
We all want to protect our glass, but it's important to realize that the front elements are darn tough. I live in a really harsh environment when lots of salt spray and sand. I don't use filters or caps. I have lenses that are 30+ years old that look like hell except for the front elements. More times than I care to admit I've used a little spit and my nasty t-shirt to "clean" my front element when it gets coated with salt haze, and yet, they basically still look like new. (Yes, I clean them properly when I get home! ) Kent made a great point when he mentioned that the front elements are relatively inexpensive if you ever did need to replace one.
I second that on the inexpensive front element. A few months ago I picked up a lightly used Canon 70-200 f2.8L that had been dropped and got a big scratch in the front element. Canon charged $80 to replace the front glass and clean up the lens. A top-quality 77mm UV filter costs more than that.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 11, 2008 at 1:08 AM
I just checked B&H. A good multicoated filter costs $80, and the Canon front element cost $80. A coincidence? Maybe. I suppose you could just buy a replacement element from Canon and keep it on hand.
I use only B+W MCR or Heliopan. They are as good or better than the glass the lenses are made of. I use UV filters on all lenses, I don't stack filters though, I take the UV off if I use a polarizer or grad. UV filters have saved the front elements on my lenses many times, maybe I am just hard on gear, but I find they really do protect my expensive glass.
I am also not really a friend of UV filters as protection, although I use them on my 24-105 and my 70-200. I am not planning to get one for my 45mm TSE and I will most likely not use 'em anymore for my other two lenses either. There is simply something about the fact of sticking some 50 to 100$ in front of something that costs 1000$ that really bothers me. Lenshoods work quite fine.
I think if one is careful with the lens, which is obligatory anyway, then a UV-filter deteriorates more than it protects. There are however some conditions like rain and dust where I feel better with a UV-filter.
As you can see there are a lot of folks straddling both sides of this fence. It really is a moot point for many of us since we often will have a polarizer or GND or ND filters on the lens anyway. If you can get as good a quality UV filter as your polarizer or GND or ND filters then what is the difference? It really comes down to cheap insurance. Sure it may only cost $80 to replace the front element, but then there is also shipping and insurance to add in. Also, what if you blow a few $1000 for a trip to some remote photo destination and scratch your 100-400 mm lens the first day; are you going to want to sit around and wait until you can get it back from Canon or just use a smaller lens for mediocre photos? I've been shooting with Canon cameras for almost 30 years and used Minoltas before that starting in 1966 and always have had a filter on the lens to protect it. In the last 30 years I've had over 180 articles and one book published and I did the photos for all of them using UV or other filters. Pay a little extra for a good Hoya double coated filter and feel a little more comfortable out in the field. Also, if you are concerned about image quality do Bill Chamber's test
Has anyone done technical tests to determine whether or not one can detect a difference in IQ with vs. without a UV filter. That is the first question. Without that info, this thread is no more than opinions.
How many pieces of glass are in a some of the more popular Canon lenses?
17 - 40 = 12 elements
24 - 70 = 16 elements
24 - 105 = 18 elements
70 - 200 f2.8 = 23 elements
Based on the above info, adding a high quality protective front glass (filter) might have little or no effect on the IQ. Would it improve or degrade IQ?
A B&W multi-coated 77mm UV filter is $150 plus shipping. That is a more expensive piece of glass than some lens element.
The above thoughts are just to raise some questions. I have no opinion in the matter.
Also, having just sent a 1D MkIII body back to Canon in NJ second day via UPS with insurance was over $93.00 which included an $8.65 fuel surcharge!! That would make an $80 element replacement plus shipping, insurance and fuel surcharge back and forth a very expensive proposition, a very expensive proposition.
Bottom line seems to be that if you prefer to use a UV filter for protection, be sure that it is of the highest quality.
I'm in the camp of not using UV filters. I stopped using them quite a while back, and will echo what's already been said by many others. As an example, a while back I borrowed a canon 300mm f4.0L from a friend. The image quality stunk unless I stopped down to f9 or so, not typical of what I've heard about that lens. After some tests, I realized the UV filter caused a loss of sharpness, and the amount of color fringing was incredible. I will note it wasn't a high quality filter, but since then I've never used a filter.
The only time I use the UV filter to protect the lens is either near waterfalls, when I KNOW I will get sprayed, or shooting brick breaking up close during martial arts tournaments.
The UV filter is one more thing to cart around and I really can't see how any impact that is going to take out the filter and lens hood will protect the lens element as well. If both of those get broken in one impact, I'd be really more concerned about what happened to the inside of the lens. Lens hoods and lens caps are a lot stronger and should be religiously.
And yes, I've knocked over my equipment on several occasions. I'm on my second 180 macro hood.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Dan's strategy above is what I do too. Waterfall spray contains grit. Other than that, yes I have indeed had some serious loss in image quality caused by even the very best B+W MRC UV filter. BTW, if a lens were to get a simple scratch on it whle on a trip, the effect on image quality is very minimal and not noticeable. Try this sometime: put a small sliver of cut from a Sticky Note on the front of your lens. The lens will focus right past it. Scratches on the REAR element are a different matter. I always have the rear lens caps on when not using a lens, just as I do the front lenscap.
I didn't mention this before, but cost also is a factor. I have four 77mm Canon lenses and one smaller one. Those are the 400 f5.6, 100-400, 70-200 f2.8, 17-40 and 100 macro.
I'd have to put a UV filter on each one, because there's just not enough time in many situations with wildlife to try to unscrew a filter from one lens and put it on another and still get the shot. And to buy top-line UV filters for all of them would simply cost too much for me, after weighing the risk/benefit factor. I do have one excellent Hoya UV filter. It sits in my bag unless I'm planning to shoot in the spray of waterfalls or the heavy dust of a rodeo ring or similar situation.
If I'm climbing down serious rocks to get to a shooting site, the lens caps are on, and I only take them off when shooting time comes. For the 400 f5.6 I've got the lens coat and lens coat lens cover, and those stay on at all times unless I'm actually shooting. Only takes a second to pull the lens coat cap off that lens if a grab shot presents itself.
Much of this is simply differences in personality. I'm pretty anal about IQ, and don't want anything more to come between the subject and the sensor than what's already necessary.
In the end, it's all good, and there are some good points to be made in favor of the UV filter for protection. It just doesn't work for me.
It's interesting to hear that most of you use your lens caps, and even more use lens hoods. This is probably very smart. I use neither (except for my 70-200 VR, which usually has a hood on it). I keep a Cokin P filter holder permanently mounted on each of my lenses in order to save time and hassle factor when using my grads or polarizer. However, even without the extra protection obviously afforded by the hoods and caps I have still never suffered any front element damage (knock wood). Just goes to show that the elements really are plenty tough.
Posted by Vern Wilkins on July 14, 2008 at 10:06 PM
A good lens pen is more worthwhile to me than a UV filter for protection! Maybe there's some protection provided by a UV filter, but for the cost of the lenses I buy, the cost of a high quality UV filter for each one isn't really justified. I'd rather spend my money on useful filters (ND's or polarizers), and other equipment. If I could afford a $10,000 Nikon 600mm f/4 VR, I might consider a $200 UV filter for some minimal added protection, but then again I might also be more concerned with such a sharp lens being degraded by any type of filter.
I use UV filters on my lenses most of the time. Like Carl, I must be hard on my lenses, but having a filter on there has saved me more than once. It seems like I'm taking pictures in either blowing rain, blowing snow, or blowing dust, and frankly, having dust on my lens is something I really don't want to deal with. Even having a hood on there might not save it when you're crawling through trees or over rocks.
Posted by Brent Murphy on July 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I've only used a filter for protection once, when shooting in windy conditions at the Great Sand Dunes. Other than that, my lens cap and/or hood always protect my lens. I've managed to dump over my camera/tripod twice so far, and the lens hood did a far better job of protecting the lens than a filter ever could.
Discussion
25 repliesFor a long time I've been using a Canon EFS 17-85 and Sigma 10-20 along with Quantaray UV filters and never had a noticeable problems. However I really think I'll be getting the 5D replacement if it ever comes out (oh by the way I currently have the Canon 40D) so I purchased the Canon 24-105 L and Canon 17-49 L along with 77MM Quantaray filters (that's what my local camera store carries). I was almost ready to return the lens's because they just weren't very sharp. Than after some experimentation I found that the problem wasn't the lens but the filer. On the Sigma that I still use there is no noticeable difference but with the L glass I get a serious blur with the filter.
I have new Hoya filters on order, hopefully they will resolve the issue.
I would love any feedback on filter quality. It seems to me that the quality of the glass in the lens makes a big difference. That is assuming that the quality of an L lens is that much better than an EFS lens.
Cheers,
Why stick anything else between the image and the sensor when you don't have to? I know a lot of folks keep the UV on for protection, including quite a few excursion clients I've had, but I've been slogging around the steep and rocky boreal forest in some very tough spots for five years and have never so much as scuffed the front element of any lens I own. This includes the Canon 100-400, 400 f5.6, 70-200 f2.8, 100 macro and 17-40.
Granted, I won't own or carry a lens without a lens hood, but leaving lens caps on when the lens isn't in use and taking care with it when the cap is off goes a long way.
I just hate the idea of adding a layer of glass when I don't need it. When I do use a filter, so far it's always a Hoya. Great quality for less then Singh Ray prices (yikes, talk about prices!). Quantaray doesn't make anything worth buying, IMO, but is a cheap house brand for Ritz Photo and gets pushed by those bozos all the time. Hoya, B+W and Singh Ray are typically the high-end filters you hear most people recommending.
Buying a cheap filter is like putting a piece of cellophane over your sensor. My position is, don't put on the raincoat unless it's starting to rain.
I work with 3 prime lenses and have a UV filter on each one of them, all the time. The lenses and the UV filters are both made by Pentax. I believe that if I can trust Pentax enough to use their lenses, then I should be okay using their UV filters.
I am very glad for the added peace of mind these filters provide. So far I have not noticed any degradation in image quality when using UV filters.
It happened when a sudden gust of wind came up and something hit the glass before I could cover it.
If Canon had filters for the prime lens I would certainly put one on and rest a lot easier. I
I don't rely on a flimsy piece of glass to protect my lenses. I use the plastic lens cap. It is FAR tougher than any UV filter. I also use the lens hood which deflects dirt and objects very well. Again, I have thousands of dollars in pro quality lenses but have never once had a problem from not having a filter. Not once despite use in some very extreme conditions. I too have had problems caused by filters, even multi-coated B+W ones.
Here's a link to Luminous Landscape that talks about the issue. Note one of their points--how many lenses do you see on eBay that have some damage to them? Very, very few. Modern coatings are very tough. Use the lens cap for maximum protection.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
Kent in SD
Why degrade image quality unnecessarily?
We all want to protect our glass, but it's important to realize that the front elements are darn tough. I live in a really harsh environment when lots of salt spray and sand. I don't use filters or caps. I have lenses that are 30+ years old that look like hell except for the front elements. More times than I care to admit I've used a little spit and my nasty t-shirt to "clean" my front element when it gets coated with salt haze, and yet, they basically still look like new. (Yes, I clean them properly when I get home!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11994-REG/B_W_66070252_77mm_UV_Haze_010.html
Kent in SD
I think if one is careful with the lens, which is obligatory anyway, then a UV-filter deteriorates more than it protects. There are however some conditions like rain and dust where I feel better with a UV-filter.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1207/bc1207-1.html
both with and without the filter and if you're not satisfied send it back--Larry
How many pieces of glass are in a some of the more popular Canon lenses?
17 - 40 = 12 elements
24 - 70 = 16 elements
24 - 105 = 18 elements
70 - 200 f2.8 = 23 elements
Based on the above info, adding a high quality protective front glass (filter) might have little or no effect on the IQ. Would it improve or degrade IQ?
A B&W multi-coated 77mm UV filter is $150 plus shipping. That is a more expensive piece of glass than some lens element.
The above thoughts are just to raise some questions. I have no opinion in the matter.
Also, having just sent a 1D MkIII body back to Canon in NJ second day via UPS with insurance was over $93.00 which included an $8.65 fuel surcharge!! That would make an $80 element replacement plus shipping, insurance and fuel surcharge back and forth a very expensive proposition, a very expensive proposition.
Bottom line seems to be that if you prefer to use a UV filter for protection, be sure that it is of the highest quality.
Bill
The UV filter is one more thing to cart around and I really can't see how any impact that is going to take out the filter and lens hood will protect the lens element as well. If both of those get broken in one impact, I'd be really more concerned about what happened to the inside of the lens. Lens hoods and lens caps are a lot stronger and should be religiously.
And yes, I've knocked over my equipment on several occasions. I'm on my second 180 macro hood.
Kent in SD
I'd have to put a UV filter on each one, because there's just not enough time in many situations with wildlife to try to unscrew a filter from one lens and put it on another and still get the shot. And to buy top-line UV filters for all of them would simply cost too much for me, after weighing the risk/benefit factor. I do have one excellent Hoya UV filter. It sits in my bag unless I'm planning to shoot in the spray of waterfalls or the heavy dust of a rodeo ring or similar situation.
If I'm climbing down serious rocks to get to a shooting site, the lens caps are on, and I only take them off when shooting time comes. For the 400 f5.6 I've got the lens coat and lens coat lens cover, and those stay on at all times unless I'm actually shooting. Only takes a second to pull the lens coat cap off that lens if a grab shot presents itself.
Much of this is simply differences in personality. I'm pretty anal about IQ, and don't want anything more to come between the subject and the sensor than what's already necessary.
In the end, it's all good, and there are some good points to be made in favor of the UV filter for protection. It just doesn't work for me.