# 100mm f2.8 L Macro - to filter or not to filter?



## TrabimanUK (Oct 29, 2013)

Hi all,

my wife has bought a 100mm 2.8L IS USM Macor lens for her wedding photography - nice closeups on the rings and a good lens in general. She has a habit of using lenses as battering rams and not using lens hoods "because they are fiddly". It takes a 67mm filter. She is insistant on not fitting a filter to it. Can anyone out there please give me a difinitive answer to the following questions:

1) can I use a filter on the macro lens without it causing vignetting?
2) is there a recommended filter to use (or a type of filter NOT to use)?

thanks in advance,

Grant


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 29, 2013)

Sorry, should have said, just looking to fit a standard UV / protector filter


----------



## Eldar (Oct 29, 2013)

1: Yes, you can use a filter without vignetting.
2: There are lots to choose from and for a UV filter you don´t have to empty the bank.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2013)

B+W MRC UV is what's on mine.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 29, 2013)

H guys,

thanks for the quick responses. I'll acquire one this week and sneek it on - see if she notices ;-)

Huge thanks again,

Grant


----------



## kirillica (Oct 29, 2013)

+1 here for using filters. I'm using B+W HD one and no side-effect so far.


----------



## iron-t (Oct 29, 2013)

I have seen some back and forth among photographers on filter use. Some say (generally EMPHATICALLY) not to use filters because (1) you're putting inferior glass in front of your expensive precision lens, robbing it of performance; and (2) in the event of an impact the damage to the lens will be worse if a filter is fitted. Anecdotally, I have tried things both ways and come away with some impressions. First, unless you're using horrible quality filters, the image quality will not suffer EXCEPT in unusual situations. The UV filter does add an element that can produce flare--this is why people spring for super-extra-digital-multicoat filters that cost $100 (and because some folks have to spend money excessively to convince themselves they're taking good photos). Second, the front of the lens becomes easier to clean with a UV filter fitted. You now have a flat surface instead of a curved element, and a LensPen DigiKlear will clean it superbly. Also, if it gets some solvent on it--say, toddler drool, mud or just plain rain--you'd rather it be on the filter. That can be replaced relatively cheaply. It's possible that the lens would fare worse in a catastrophic impact with the filter on, but how often does that happen? More likely you're talking about scratches. Again, better to damage the filter. All that being said, I don't like to use filters on lenses that use external focusing, e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM or Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7, because you're adding mass that the focusing mechanism has to move. Those lenses are already a bit slow to focus without any assistance from extra mass.


----------



## e17paul (Oct 29, 2013)

Surely the answer depends upon whether weather sealing is required.

As far as I know, L lenses are only weather sealed if used with a filter. If the camera is not weathersealed, maintaining that aspect of protection would however be pointless.

Incidentally, my non weathersealed 50/2.5 macro survived taking the attached photo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2013)

e17paul said:


> Surely the answer depends upon whether weather sealing is required.
> 
> As far as I know, L lenses are only weather sealed if used with a filter.



Surely not. The only sealed L lenses (and not all L lenses are sealed) that formally require a front filter to complete the weather/dust seal (according to the manual) are those with a front element that moves inside the barrel - the 50/1.2L, 16-35Ls, and 17-40L. It's been recommended (e.g. by Chuck Westfall of Canon USA) that a filter be used on all sealed lenses that accept one (the supertele lenses are fully sealed, but have no front filter threads due to the large size of the front elements).


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2013)

I use B&W Clear 007 just to protect my L lenses:

Try one of these:
1. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756816-REG/B_W_66_1066109_67mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

2. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475493-REG/B_W_66_1001703_67mm_007_Protection_Clear.html


----------



## eli452 (Oct 29, 2013)

XS-Pro Digital MRC Nano Clear Protect filter 007 67mm on my glass, no problems.


----------



## Jappe (Nov 15, 2013)

For 100mm focal length lens you can put filter that's edge is 10-20mm thick without problems.

I have used B+W and Hoya filters and both work fine. B+W's brass rim is not so sticky than Hoya's aluminium rim.


----------



## Zen (Nov 16, 2013)

eli452 said:


> XS-Pro Digital MRC Nano Clear Protect filter 007 67mm on my glass, no problems.



Formerly a dyed in the wool Heliopan devotee, I've recently been converted to the B+W XS Pro Nano. Really nice! Brass threads make it as easy to screw on and off as the Heliopan, but the Nano coating is head and shoulders over the H'pan for staying clean. Both use Schott glass, but B+W are considerably cheaper than H'pan.

I'd recommend either the H'pan or B+W. And, I have one on my 100 macro with no problems.

Zen


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2013)

When you use quality filters, there is not much of a IQ hit, so its a matter of personal preference. Filters can be expensive, and a good filter might cost more than the front element of the lens, so there can be a false savings depending on the lens.

If someone is rough on equipment, a good filter would likely not hurt. Its not as though you have to remove / install it frequently. THK, B&W, Heliopan, even high end Tiffin filters are ok.


----------

