# UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?



## Jack56 (Jul 12, 2014)

I can imagine that this question has been on the forum before. I am sorry if so.
I've bought the new 16-35 f/4. I was recommended to put a B+W Slim 010 UV 77 E MRC filter on the front especially for protection. But this filter isn't available (can't find it on the net either).
Do you use a protection filter or .......


----------



## candyman (Jul 12, 2014)

Yes, I do.
B+W 007 MRC Nano XS-Pro Digital 77mm E 

Edit: you can also use Hoya UV Filter 77mm HD


----------



## Jack56 (Jul 12, 2014)

Thanks for your reply. Is this a slim version (for no vignetting) and can you still use your lenscap?


----------



## candyman (Jul 12, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> Thanks for your reply. Is this a slim version (for no vignetting) and can you still use your lenscap?



It is a neutral clear filter to prevent vignetting when using wide angle lenses. You can still use your lenscap.

EDIT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756817-REG/


----------



## Jack56 (Jul 12, 2014)

Thank you very much!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread. 

According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...


----------



## Menace (Jul 12, 2014)

candyman said:


> Yes, I do.
> B+W 007 MRC Nano XS-Pro Digital 77mm E



+1 for B+W


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Also, the 16-35/4L IS actually _requires_ a filter to complete the weather sealing.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > I can imagine that this question has been on the forum before. I am sorry if so.
> ...



??


----------



## Menace (Jul 12, 2014)

Vossie said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



??


----------



## lycan (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > I can imagine that this question has been on the forum before. I am sorry if so.
> ...



;D I couldn't have said any better. You're right.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If you put a filter on, remember to take it off when you take photographs.



Spoken like a true troll.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 12, 2014)

candyman said:


> Yes, I do.
> B+W 007 MRC Nano XS-Pro Digital 77mm E
> 
> Edit: you can also use Hoya UV Filter 77mm HD


+1 I also got this B+W filter and it's the best for my new 16-35mm f4L IS


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 12, 2014)

I found that I've had a polarizer on this lens 90% of the time for landscaping since I got it three weeks ago. So I essentially am using the polarizer as the protective filter and only use a UV filter during low light shooting.


----------



## infared (Jul 12, 2014)

candyman said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your reply. Is this a slim version (for no vignetting) and can you still use your lenscap?
> ...



Jack this is what I used on my new 16-35mm IS ..These are always the best in my opinion, too. I have noticed no additional vignetting from the filter.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > Vossie said:
> ...



Right because all my L glass has filters on them and haven't been able to take a single photo with them. : : : Some people.... smh...


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 12, 2014)

Guys, remember, when you're ready to shoot a photo, remove the front glass elements from your lens. Actually, just remove the lens. It may be best to take the camera away, too. Guys, when you're ready to take a photo, just look with your eye.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 12, 2014)

Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter. There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.

But, in exchange you get:

* *Weather-sealing*: both the 16-35 f/4L IS and the 16-35 f/2.8L II are *not* weather sealed without a filter.

* *Ease of cleaning*: Got some crud on the clear filter? Spit shine it with your shirt! If you scratch it, the investment to replace is minimal. Busting out a microfiber cloth in the field isn't always practical.

* *Virtual lens cap*: sometimes during sessions you need to swap between two cameras quickly. Would you want to throw a camera in a bag - or have it in a holster - with no lens cap? Well, assuming you don't drop your bag on concrete, for these fast swaps there is little risk if you put a capless lens/camera in a bag if it has a filter. One shouldn't make a habit of this, but its an option you generally would not have without a filter.

* *Riskier shots*: 16mm on full frame may require you to get VERY close to what you want to photograph in some cases. Do you want to risk your unprotected front element in these cases? How about action shots, if you are photographing in harsh elements, or just greater confidence in general since you don't have to worry about your lens?

* *In reality, it does cost a lot to fix the front element of a lens, and you will lose use of the lens while its being repaired*: While some blogs have pointed out that the cost of a front element is not always that much, the labor to replace it usually is large amount and it involves your lens being out of action while getting repaired. If you are getting paid, this is not a situation you want to be in.

In my opinion, the benefits *FAR* outweigh the very minimal additional flare you might get with a quality filter. If you are shooting pictures of the moon at night, that is one situation I can think of where you might want to pass on a filter due to the extremely bright/dark transition (high contrast) subject matter being the focus of the picture. Every other situation, keep it on. That is, assuming you buy a good one - I only use the B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC 007m as it is color-neutral, multicoated, and very slim.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 12, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter. There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.
> 
> But, in exchange you get:
> 
> ...



Exactly! 

Canon recommends filters on L series, which carries more weight than OCD fretting over invisible lmpact on IQ.

Geeze' when somebody wants advice on gear or techniques that bug you, just let it go. Silly old debate.

And +1 for B+W!


----------



## Khalai (Jul 12, 2014)

candyman said:


> B+W 007 MRC Nano XS-Pro Digital 77mm E


+1

007 line of B+W filters are clear (i.e. no UV or IR filtering capabilities), just for protection. There is no need for additional UV and/or IR filtering with modern cameras anymore. I use these on my lenses as well...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



No, you're the troll. But the article author mentions only increased possibility of flare in backlit scenes. As Ruined stated, there are many advantages to using a protective (UV or clear) filter. 

As I stated, for the lens under discussion Canon indicates that a front filter is *required for weather and dust sealing*. As for other L-series lenses, Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on all sealed lenses that have front threads (as in, personally recommended to me in an email exchange discussing weather sealed lenses).




dilbert said:


> Indeed, it is a silly old debate.



Did the OP ask whether or not to use a filter? No. The debate was ignited in this thread by YOUR silly comment, which is why I label you a TROLL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.
> 
> According to TDP, a standard B+W UV (F-Pro) does not cause additional vignetting, and it's cheaper...



+1 and confirmed. 

I just tried a standard (i.e. not slim) 77mm B+W UV on my new 16-35 F/4L IS and it does not vignette, even at 16mm. I'd buy the standard one for best lens cap attachment. 

This is the exact one I tried:

BWUVMC77 77mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The XS-Pro mount is slim, but with a front thread.
> ...



For me, that means not buying one at all, as I have at least one (maybe 2) surplus 77mm F-Pro MRC UV filters. One came from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which surprisingly for a telezoom lens _does_ have additional vignetting with an F-Pro mount, so I replaced it with a 77mm XS-Pro.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Disclaimer: my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm. 

Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner. But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?

- A


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 12, 2014)

I got my 16-35 IS and put on the Tiffen equivalent to the filter recommended in this thread, see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533244-REG/Tiffen_77HTDUC_77mm_Digital_HT_High.html
I then put the the lens on my 1Ds2 and placed it in my underwater housing for it and took some preliminary test shots yesterday during a break in a major storm (> 2" of rain). One is posted here (@16mm). No adverse effects from the filter; glad to have the weather sealing (per Canon) as "insurance".
Tom


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Disclaimer: my feedback was from a quick F/8 shot against a white wall with no peripheral illumination enabled. I checked at 1x in the corners and saw no hard obstruction in the field of view at 16mm.



Bryan/TDP tests using an F-Pro filter and quantifies the vignetting with Imatest. He shows no effect of the filter at 16mm f/4.



ahsanford said:


> Non-pro question: I only thought filter rings were a threat to obstruct the field of view with an abrupt black corner. But can they also create a more gradual darkening like shooting a lens wide open?



Yes, a filter _can_ increase optical vignetting without causing mechanical vignetting, depending on filter thickness, lens design and selected aperture. For example, on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, stacking up to two F-Pro filters has no effect at f/2.8, but adding an additional XS-Pro filter causes mechanical vignetting at f/2.8, and ~1 stop of optical vignetting (but no mechanical vignetting) at f/5.6. With the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, stacking an F-Pro and an XS-Pro results in ~3/4-stop more optical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1/2-stop at f/5.6, two F-Pro filters gives mechanical vignetting at f/2.8 and ~1.5-stops optical vignetting at f/5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So again, neutronomist, you resort to personal attacks rather than providing any sort of argument of substance and I'll take that as you raising the white flag rather than being able to mount or sustain any sort of credible argument.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Now all the protection filter does is give the vendor selling you kit something to make a good margin on: it optically serves no purpose with modern lenses and digital sensors.



So, I _didn't_ bring up the weather sealing requirement? See post #7. Or state that outside of backlit scenes there is no optical disadvantage?

Thanks for trolling. 

Protection filters do just that – protect. That serves an important purpose. If you choose not to use them, good for you. But saying they serve no purpose other than vendor profit is incorrect. 

What are the odds of front element damage if no filter is used? Low. Perhaps not too different from the odds of contracting an STD from having unprotected sex with a stranger. At least a scratched lens is better than syphilis...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter. There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.
> ...



Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day.
> ...


Your post.


----------



## Straightshooter (Jul 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day.
> ...



Poor Dilbert! Under attack by the Super-Geeks! 
Don't forget, Neuroanatomist recently mentioned that his wife is smart TOO! : 

By the way, 'Neuro', we are all very impressed by your technical knowledge, but can you actually shoot a decent photo?
Just wondering...?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

Straightshooter said:


> By the way, 'Neuro', we are all very impressed by your technical knowledge, but can you actually shoot a decent photo?
> Just wondering...?



I'm happy with many of them. Feel free to browse...unlike many posters here who seem reluctant to post their own images, I put a link to my photostream in my signature.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 13, 2014)

This is entertaining. It all started with a student who genuinely was seeking advice. Then there were clowns, professors, associate professors, fake professors, kids who hate professors. We all know in the end the true knowledge prevails.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


TL;DR


----------



## Zv (Jul 13, 2014)

A lens like this is meant for outdoor, landscape / seascapes use in which case you'd want some kind of protection. If you were using it indoors in a studio then you can prob skip the filter. It's pretty simple - Use a a filter when required.

I keep a filter on my EF-M 22 f/2 all the time instead of a lens cap. It means it's always ready to shoot and easy to store (don't need to worry). Lens caps are all good and well but they can come off in your bag. Filter makes sense when you're out and about. For all other lenses it depends what I'm doing. 

If I'm taking my time (tripod work) I'll remove the filter but that's usually because I want to use an ND or a polarizer.


----------



## Otter (Jul 13, 2014)

It sounds like I am the minority but definitely no filter for me. I shoot mostly landscapes and use a lee filter system with 2 slots and even a polarizer on the end as well at times. I can't afford to put a UV filter on the end and increase vingetting even further. 
I do use UV filters on my other lenses that I don't stack extra filters on but I have to opt out for the 16-35mm F4. With my last 16-35 2.8 I did not use a filter with either. I am not sure what the extent of the sealing and weather proofing is but I did have a small piece of dust in my glass. However it was never visible in my photos and was a none issue.
As crazy as it sounds and I know someone was trolling about it in an early post, but I will prob store it with a filter on the end and take it off for shoots.


----------



## Jack56 (Jul 13, 2014)

Thank you all for all the comments. I didn't know that this question would gave me so much response.
I think the last advice will suit me best. Keep it extra safe in every place and remove the filter when required.
The best of both worlds, so to say, and I have to pay for that.
Thanks again!


----------



## wtlloyd (Jul 13, 2014)

Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 13, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> I found that I've had a polarizer on this lens 90% of the time for landscaping since I got it three weeks ago. So I essentially am using the polarizer as the protective filter and only use a UV filter during low light shooting.



Be careful:
1. You might get very uneven skies on a UWA lens if you use a polarizer. Keeping it on all the time might not be advisable. 
2. The circular polarizers are prone to delamination from moisture (except B+W's Kaesemann which has protection against delamination), so they are not the best waterproofing material out there.

I think filters vs no filters is a completely pointless argument. The facts are all out there- and it is entirely on the user to decide what's best for him and for that situation. Anyone who puts out a fatuous argument stating he knows best is bound to be attacked, by geeks or not. And that still does not call for personal attacks, especially from members who have yet to contribute anything to the forum.


----------



## infared (Jul 13, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!



REALLY!!!! The train really came off the tracks here. LOL!
I use filters...my prints hang in galleries...people buy them. They don't ask if I had a filter on the lens or not. Its all personal choice. I will continue to protect my expensive equipment. It works well for me. If I put a B&W XS-Pro/Nano-MC on my lens and shoot a test with and without, upon close inspection I can see no difference in the images. The only thing that upsets me is that I can't put a filter on my 17mm TSE....especially because the glass sticks out into the room and that makes it the most prone to damage of all of my lenses! LOL!.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 13, 2014)

infared said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Come for the rumors, stay for the entertainment!
> ...



There's the wonderpana system.


----------



## ecka (Jul 13, 2014)

"Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.

@neutronomist. Talking about sex . Does the fear of STD's make you wear a condom 24/7? (or did? before marriage)
No offense, just kidding .


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 13, 2014)

ecka said:


> "Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.



Once again, this is totally subjective.
First, If I feel the UV filter has no effect on MY pictures (I have more of an effect, and I can't remove myself from the equation unfortunately), why would I bother putting it on and off?
Second, in the environment you describe I would cover my whole lens in plastic because sand getting between the rings is a bigger issue. In real world situation, I see a lot of dust in the air, or the occasional spray if I am shooting close to the water or in the rain. The UV filter is just easier to clean off. 

In my case, it is filters 24/7 except when I am using the Lee system. I don't obsess over whether I need a filter or not, it is just convenient to have it on all the time rather than consciously putting it on and off.
I have seen many, many professionals who just put a filter on their lenses and no lens cap when they put them in their shooting bag for quick access. 

To cite your own example: barrier contraceptives are useful for more than preventing diseases.
It is unwise to assume what works for one works for every one.


----------



## ecka (Jul 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > "Filters or no filters" is not the question. The question is - "Filters 24/7, or filters only when the extra protection is needed" (like wet, dusty environments, with dirt, sand and other stuff flying around). In most ordinary everyday situations, a lens hood can protect the front element from damage perfectly well.
> ...



Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon ) after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG . Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does  and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results  ). It happens, please stop denying that.


----------



## Otter (Jul 14, 2014)

I was wondering how adept the factory sealing on an "L" lens at keeping dust out of a zoom lens? I presume they all have the same issue(dust penetrating the lens where the lens has moving parts), whether the lens zooms at the middle(24-70mm) of the lens or at the end of the lens itself(16-35mm). Perhaps the white lenses are a step up in terms of built quality and weather sealing? To me it seems unsatisfactory that something that is labeled "weather sealed" can still allow dust enter the internal parts of the lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 14, 2014)

ecka said:


> Well, you do shoot in environments where the extra protection is needed. Some people actually live in such environments (good reason for getting a waterproof case or gear insurance, which may be much more reasonable investment than filters). However, many people, don't. So my statement stands.
> I agree about the cleaning, because we just don't care that much about filters and what we clean them with. I remember using my Sigma 150Macro for two weeks every day and I didn't bother putting the lens cap on. No filters were attached, I just kept the hood on and the front element stayed pretty clean all the time. Actually, I don't remember it getting dirty (so it would require to clean it immediately) at all. That hood is a deep one, so this trick may not work that well for UWA. Outdoors, I only used a microcloth to clean off some fingerprints from my hoodless primes (ohh greedy canon ) after someone grabs the camera to see pictures and they come off easily (if the cloth is clean of course). You just need to wash the cloth from time to time.
> There are professionals who not only use filters instead of caps, they generally don't care much about keeping those filter clean + they never use hoods and shoot JPG . Like you said, it just works for them. For me, I'd get an extra lens rather than putting a filter on each one of them. Everything is subjective. UV filter has no effect on pictures until it does  and it is OK if you can ignore those rare occasions. I mean it may noticeably affect pictures in some specific circumstances, not all the time (and not in filter promoting lab test results  ). It happens, please stop denying that.



I think we are both saying the same thing- it is subjective, and differs from case to case.

I said in MY case it doesn't significantly affect the IQ.

I am sure there are people whose pictures do get affected. And it totally makes sense for them to not use filters themselves, or at least not all the time.However, preaching everyone else not to use it is a bit presumptuous. 

Again, in MY case there isn't usually a concern about mud, water, etc. to a huge degree. But then again- few days back I was on the Maid of the Mist, shooting with my 24-70II inside the Optech Rainsleeve (which is great for protecting your camera but not your lens, by the way). I was feeling a lot better with a filter in front even though the 24-70 is water-resistant.

People obsess over little things and start these long discussions, and that is fine until it isn't and there are personal attacks and insults. You mention washing your microfiber cloth- you should see a thread that discusses whether or not you should wash it with regular laundry


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.
> 
> Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great. The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.


Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses. 

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting. 

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look. Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches. These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job. If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality. It would kill the resale value. I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.
> ...


Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time. I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



True BW clear filter is 007 

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> True BW clear filter is 007
> 
> BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.


That's correct, but they are slightly more expensive than the UV ones (supply & *demand*...), and I have tried both but have never noticed the difference when I've compared them side-by-side. And yes, I do realize the UV coating isn't necessary in the digital era...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned. 
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jul 14, 2014)

I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## tomscott (Jul 14, 2014)

yoms said:


> I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
> I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0
> 
> Just my 2 cents...



+1 I just bought one for my 24-70 MK! and shot wide open it accentuates the CA to stupid amounts!!! Bokeh looks worse too. Couldn't believe it thought spending good money would be worth it but have to say pretty disappointed with it.

Never shot with filters because they do effect image quality regardless how good they are.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...




What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting? 
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2014)

And I thought a fresh poll on this might be fun:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21788.0

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far. 

Thanks for head up though


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Dylan, the only thing I've noticed is that flare is much worse with two filters, but would agree that sharpness doesn't seem to be an issue, and vignetting is only an issue with certain lens/filter combinations.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2014)

yoms said:


> I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
> I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0
> 
> Just my 2 cents...



Interesting. I use toploaders constantly, and I have all three sizes of the Lowepro Toploader Pro (65 AW, 70 AW, 75 AW). Several of my lenses have XS-Pro filters on them, and I've never had that issue. I use an XS-Pro filter on my 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I've carried that in the 75 AW with the 1D X and 2xIII TC - a very tight fit where closing the zipper is putting a fair bit of pressure on the camera/lens (and the zipper!), still no issues.


----------

