# Need filter suggestions - Ordered Canon 100mm f2.8 L macro



## balaji (Nov 14, 2012)

I ordered a 100mm 2.8 L lens and should be picking up from the store tomorrow. I am planning to use this lens for Macro and Portraits. I use Hood on my other lenses at all times which I plan to do with the new lens as well.

Please suggest what filters I need for Macro and portrait. I do have a Marumi CP (77mm) that I use on my other 2 lens (77mm and 67 mm with a step down/up ring).

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 14, 2012)

The 100L has quite a deep hood, if you're planning on using the hood all the time and just want it for protection you might consider not using a filter. I don't use one on mine and can't really see shrubs and the like ever coming into contact with the front element, although you might still want one for weather sealing but once again with the hood probably not much of an issue in practice.


----------



## candyman (Nov 14, 2012)

balaji said:


> I ordered a 100mm 2.8 L lens and should be picking up from the store tomorrow. I am planning to use this lens for Macro and Portraits. I use Hood on my other lenses at all times which I plan to do with the new lens as well.
> 
> Please suggest what filters I need for Macro and portrait. I do have a Marumi CP (77mm) that I use on my other 2 lens (77mm and 67 mm with a step down/up ring).
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 
I use on my 100 f/2.8 L - and most of my lenses - B&W UV MRC filters. They are not cheap but there is almost no influence of the filter on the IQ. (At least, I don't see it) And, the filters make the weather sealing more complete. Hoya UV HD filters are also good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

A UV for protection if so inclined. The CPL you have, and although the step-up ring will prevent using the hood, the hood is so deep it makes rotating a CPL almost impossible, so you'd likely have it off anyway. It's an f/2.8 lens and you've got a 1/8000 s max shutter, so no need for ND with ambient light (unlike an f/1.8 or faster lens, where a 2-3 stop ND can help on a sunny day. But...if you plan to use lots of supplemental light (not just fill flash, but overpower-the-sun with multiple flashes or a monolight), then you'd need an ND.


----------



## GaryJ (Nov 14, 2012)

balaji said:


> I ordered a 100mm 2.8 L lens and should be picking up from the store tomorrow. I am planning to use this lens for Macro and Portraits. I use Hood on my other lenses at all times which I plan to do with the new lens as well.
> 
> Please suggest what filters I need for Macro and portrait. I do have a Marumi CP (77mm) that I use on my other 2 lens (77mm and 67 mm with a step down/up ring).
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I use only a CP when needed,no filters otherwise,I pesonally see too much degradation of images using UV filters,I use MT-24 flash for a lot of macro ,filters are not a requirement for the style of macro I shoot,when shooting portraits no filter is on the lens.I have yet to find a filter maker who can match the quality of glass that Canon turns out, I always keep in mind that I have a Very expensive piece of equpment at the end of my arm and act accordingly,after 8 yrs have had no scratches dings or dents with any of my digital gear,same goes for my 25 yr old film gear.Save yourself some money and just be aware of your actions and have fun.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 14, 2012)

candyman said:


> I use on my 100 f/2.8 L - and most of my lenses - B&W UV MRC filters.



I'm using B+W clear protection filters on my lenses - what's the reason to use a uv filter with digital?

To the op: With the macro lens, you sometimes have to remove the hood at large magnifications because it gets in the way of the light or flashes, or shy animals frighten faster because the hood is closer to them. That's why I'd recommend a filter, and a 67mm to stay on all the time, I don't think there's any iq degradation and personally I feel better cleaning a filter than the lens.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 14, 2012)

i'd never use a filter unless i could absolutely not avoid it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm using B+W clear protection filters on my lenses - what's the reason to use a uv filter with digital?



Optically, there's no difference for a dSLR. But in some markets/sizes, the UV version of the filter is cheaper and/or more widely available. Whenever I've needed to buy one, B+W MRC UV 010 was always a few $ cheaper than the same-sized B+W MRC Clear 007 - so I bought the UV.


----------



## balaji (Nov 14, 2012)

Thanks ALL for your valuable suggestions.

One question though. I am picking up the L series version of the lens and I thought this lens is weather sealed, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks again


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

balaji said:


> One question though. I am picking up the L series version of the lens and I thought this lens is weather sealed, please correct me if I am wrong.



Yes, it's a weather sealed lens (when used on a sealed body, of course). The front element does not move, so there's no official statement that a filter is required to complete the sealing. Chuck Westfall (Canon's technical guru) has previously recommended using a filter on all sealed lenses that take them (i.e. everything but the supertele lenses).


----------



## balaji (Nov 14, 2012)

Got it. I have a 5DM3. Thanks Neuroanatomist


----------



## balaji (Nov 14, 2012)

Just picked up the lens from BestBuy, I'm very excited .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

Enjoy!


----------



## balaji (Nov 15, 2012)

Here are some test shots handheld f2.8, 1/100 and 1/80 (2 shots), ISO 8000. I am already liking the sharpness and Bokeh. Wow


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I use on my 100 f/2.8 L - and most of my lenses - B&W UV MRC filters.
> ...



+1...on B&W Clear Filter. I have clear filters on all my lenses as protection. Easy to clean and it's *CLEAR.*


----------



## knkedlaya (Nov 15, 2012)

+1 for B&W. I havent seen difference in the image quality with or without it in my use. So I mount it on lens all the time. This was not the case with my earlier Tamron 90mm(now broken) and a locally made filter, I stopped using that filter.
I go early mornings for taking photos, and there are times when dew drops falls on the lens, having a filter is much safer I feel. You dont have to touch the front glass but only the filter.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2012)

This is a lifelong 'tastes great / less filling' debate topic.

My vote: +1 on B+W UV filters, unless a CPL is needed (in which case I swap them). Strongly recommend a CPL for macro, but less for color or exposure, and more for managing reflections in droplets of water, glare from leaves, etc. You should have a CPL for that lens in general non-macro use as well. (It's a fully functional 100 prime, right?)

My UV Rationale:

1) It's cheap lens insurance at zero IQ cost. Filters protect the front element from damage. Unless you are buying very cheap lenses, even pricey filters are cheaper to replace than lenses are to repair.

2) When air or a microfiber are not enough, I am far more comfortable cleaning filters with that ROR liquid than using that stuff on lens elements.

3) I don't like having to remember if the L lens I'm using has weather sealing that is filter-dependent or not, so they just _all_ get filters. Easy.

4) Hoods sit in my bag. I have a 100% VF and have (I suppose) decent discipline with sun placement in the frame, and three of my lenses' hoods are nightmare to use with CPLs. However, if I _was_ using a hood, perhaps I'd shoot with naked lenses.

About the only time I have naked lens elements is when I use my Lee 4x6 ND grads (i.e. way less than 1% of the time). That system requires adaptor rings -- a screw-in like a filter (but no glass on it) with a metal outrigger to receive the big frame to hold the rectangular ND grads. As I don't like stacking filters (annoying for threading/unthreading reasons), if I go ND grad it's a _sort-of-naked_ lens in that dust/water can touch the lens, but the 4x6 serves as a physical barrier for drops, impact, finger contact, etc.

- A


----------



## leftnose (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm in the camp where I generally put UV filters on all my lenses.

With the 100L Macro, I especially felt the need for a UV filter _*because*_ of the hugely deep lens hood. Even with an aftermarket center-pinch lens cap, I find dealing with the lens cap when the hood is installed very difficult. Even though I have fairly large hands, I manage to drop the filter quite often and I got tired of bouncing the lens cap off the front element.

As to which filter? The B+W MRC 010 that everyone else has recommended is what I have installed. I'm a bit weird and put B+W MRC filters on all my primes but Hoya S-HMC on all my zooms. Don't ask me why. I don't know!


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 16, 2012)

balaji said:


> I ordered a 100mm 2.8 L lens and should be picking up from the store tomorrow. I am planning to use this lens for Macro and Portraits. I use Hood on my other lenses at all times which I plan to do with the new lens as well.
> 
> Please suggest what filters I need for Macro and portrait. I do have a Marumi CP (77mm) that I use on my other 2 lens (77mm and 67 mm with a step down/up ring).
> 
> Thanks in advance.



B&W MRC UV filters

B&W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer's

The best filters for the best lenses. I trust the germans engineering every little detail of these filters.


----------



## bkorcel (Nov 16, 2012)

Why would you want to put a filter on such a fine lens? If you are going to use a filter, save some $$$ and buy the non-L version instead.


----------



## leftnose (Nov 16, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> B&W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer's


Just as an FWIW, _I've been told_ that the MRC Kaesemann circular polarizers are optically identical to the standard MRC circular polarizers. The difference is the construction. The Kaesemann filters are simply sealed around the edge to protect the polarizing foil against humidity and other environmental conditions.

So, if you live in and never leave the desert, a standard MRC polarizer might be money better spent.

At least, that's what I've been told.


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 16, 2012)

I put a B/W clear mrc filter on my 100 Macro. Why? I shoot 1-4 inches from my subjects occasionally getting poked and scraped by branches and twigs and whatnot. A hood just doesn't always cut it.


----------



## leftnose (Nov 16, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Why would you want to put a filter on such a fine lens? If you are going to use a filter, save some $$$ and buy the non-L version instead.


Optically, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between the L and non-L 100 macros. The main difference is IS and build quality. So, if you're going to argue that the OP shouldn't put a filter in front of the -L lens for reasons of IQ, you should argue the same thing about the non-L.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 16, 2012)

leftnose said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > B&W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer's
> ...



Product Highlights - From B&H photo
Helps to Eliminate Reflections and Glare
Reduces Haze and Blue Cast in Landscapes
Greater Color and Tonal Saturation
High Efficiency Kaesemann Foils <------------------------------Exclusive
MRC Multi-Resistant Coating
Rugged Brass Filter Ring
High Quality Schott Glass

"Kaesemann-type filters feature greater optical efficiency than regular polarizing foils and are more neutral in color. The polarizing foils are cemented between plano-parallel optical glass layers, which are then precision-polished to achieve the most accurate plano-parallel surface. This edge sealing protects the filter layers from humidity and are ideal for use with high-speed telephoto and apochromatic lenses."

I've noticed that they don't cool my image as much as the standard B&W polarizers. Its more neutral.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> I put a B/W clear mrc filter on my 100 Macro. Why? I shoot 1-4 inches from my subjects occasionally getting poked and scraped by branches and twigs and whatnot. A hood just doesn't always cut it.



+1, and for me it's even more true with the MP-E 65mm.


----------



## bkorcel (Nov 16, 2012)

True but you will spend a lot less money!!! Why hinder the optical quality of the L glass with something that will affect IQ either in distortion or reflection. Isnt that why we buy L glass in the first place?

This argument will go on for years but my opinion is don't use filters unless you need to such as working in damp or sandy areas where you need the protection.



leftnose said:


> bkorcel said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you want to put a filter on such a fine lens? If you are going to use a filter, save some $$$ and buy the non-L version instead.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 23, 2012)

I needed a new 77mm CPL and instead of the normal B+W MRC, I got the Kaesemann as the prices were shockingly the same. I hope the 'sealing' doesn't make them more annoying to screw in or use, as I love my 58mm B+W MRC CPL. 

But it is rumored to be just that slight bit better than what I've been using, and it was the same price. Why not give it a try?

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Why would you want to put a filter on such a fine lens? If you are going to use a filter, save some $$$ and buy the non-L version instead.



IS and focus speed. you can do handheld macro photography.... i tried the L and the non-L version on butterflies in flight.... only the L version came away with sharp and in-focus pictures

Also, while the lens hood is great for non-macro work, it is too big for macro. It blocks light on extreme closeups and can scare away insects...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 28, 2012)

Dont use a filter on any L glass unless you need to use a polarizer. Filters generally degrade IQ even if ever so slightly. I would not buy an L lens if you prefer to have a filter in front of it. YOu're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer.



balaji said:


> I ordered a 100mm 2.8 L lens and should be picking up from the store tomorrow. I am planning to use this lens for Macro and Portraits. I use Hood on my other lenses at all times which I plan to do with the new lens as well.
> 
> Please suggest what filters I need for Macro and portrait. I do have a Marumi CP (77mm) that I use on my other 2 lens (77mm and 67 mm with a step down/up ring).
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

East Wind Photography said:


> Dont use a filter on any L glass unless you need to use a polarizer. Filters generally degrade IQ even if ever so slightly. I would not buy an L lens if you prefer to have a filter in front of it. YOu're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer.



I'll just point out that in some cases (16-35L II, 17-40L, 50L), Canon specifically states that a filter is required to complete the dust/weather sealing for the lens. Also, all of the uber expensive supertelephoto lenses (300/2.8 and up) have a drop in filter slot, and Canon states that a filter is part of the optical design so the glass insert should be left in the holder.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 28, 2012)

That's true and of course if you are going underwater you will need to use an underwater housing that includes a filter in front.

For all other uses, forget the filter. 



neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Dont use a filter on any L glass unless you need to use a polarizer. Filters generally degrade IQ even if ever so slightly. I would not buy an L lens if you prefer to have a filter in front of it. YOu're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer.
> ...


----------

