# Canon 16-35mm f/4 Lens Cleaning Issues



## Jemlnlx (Mar 11, 2015)

Recently got a Canon 16-35mm f/4 Lens which I love. The only issue is that it seems a lot harder to clean when using a microfober cloth as opposed to my other lenses. I have a 24-70mm I, 70-200 f4 and 300mm f4 (UB Code) which all clean easily. When cleaning the 16-35, it seems like the dust sticks to the glass more. Do they use a different coating on that lens? Not a big issue as I can usually clean after a few extra minutes with combination rocket blower + cloth, its just new to me. 

Also, any recommendation on cloths/cleaners would be great.

Any and all feedback is appreciated. 

Thanks
Jason


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2015)

Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2015)

Guess I'll be the first on this thread to suggest at least trying a high quality UV filter to protect that front element and avoid the need for cleaning it often.

The only time I can get a fingerprint or dust on my front elements is when I'm swapping the UV filter for a circular polarizer or ND filter.

You can experiment with IQ and decide if it takes any detectable hit. I haven't been able to see any whatsoever.

Yes, it could be shown that when shooting into the sun, lens flare characteristics change a bit or might be slightly increased. I usually forget to take mine off to check how much effect it is having. But I don't shoot a lot of sunlit backlight shots.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 11, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.



+1 on the lenspen and rocketblower. I use the lenspen first to get rid of the smudges/marks and brush as much of the stuff off with the lenspen brush. Then rocketblower to blow off the remaining dust/particles.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 11, 2015)

http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Pre-Moistened-Cleaning-Wipes-Count/dp/B0030E4UIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426100878&sr=8-1&keywords=zeiss+lens+cleaning

I keep these with me in the bag at all times. 

Ditto on filters. I have a B+W UV filter on every lens I own. They saved (drop damage) my 70-200 mkii and my 35mm Sigma ART. They render zero effect on the image, except maybe a tinge of extra vignetting on my 16-35 f4 at the wide end...but whoopie do. Fix that in post. Does a good job of keeping the front elements clear and I clean them with the Zeiss cloths.


----------



## davidcarlyon (Mar 12, 2015)

Ditto on the B+W filters. I got one each on my 16-35 f/4, Sigma 50mm ART, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II.

I got the XS-Pro for the 16-35mm, which is a bit thinner, but you can still put the regular lens cap on it. It might give a tiny bit of vignetting at 16mm, but nothing you wouldn't notice without a back and forth comparison.

For the other lenses I have F-Pros, which have thicker rings.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 12, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the newer lenses have a fluorine coating, but you should find it easier to clean instead of the other way around. I usually do the rocket blower, and use a LensPen or just breath on the lens and use a microfiber cloth. Is your cloth clean / new? If it's old and there's dust on it, it will transfer to the lens.
> ...



Same here, this combination works great. I find the 16-35/4 to be one of my easier lenses to clean.

I have UV filters for most of my lenses, but have gradually stopped using them unless I need the weather sealing, or in a situation where finger prints (little kids birthday parties...) or dirt will be a problem. No matter how good the UV filter, I feel there is some image degradation. I use my lens hoods to protect the lens front element.


----------



## steven kessel (Mar 12, 2015)

I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.


----------



## Foxdude (Mar 12, 2015)

I have protection filter, or UV-filter in every glass I own. I bought the Hoya protection filter to my 16-35 IS at 27€, it is cheap and I don't have to worry about expensive lens and it's front element. No need to remove it, and easy clean.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2015)

steven kessel said:


> I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.



Please don't do that. That PL costs you two stops of iso at least, it has virtually no effect much of the time you are using it apart from raising your iso. Use the UV filter for 'protection' if that is your inclination, but don't put a PL on unless there is a very good reason.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> steven kessel said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 16-35 and I pretty much keep the circular polarizer on the lens 24/7. If I didn't have that filter on the lens I'd have a UV filter on it. My practice is to put filters in front of all of my lenses in order to protect the front element. I find that the B + W filters are expensive, but superb.
> ...



Agreed. UV is on mine 24/7. C Pol when needed (bright outdoors, pretty sky, water, glass, etc...). Essentially knocking your lens down to the equivalent of max f8 speeds all the time isn't helping you.... plus... C Pols are way more expensive than UVs, so why use it as your lens insurance policy all the time? I'm not keen on having on to replace a $150 filter


----------



## mrzero (Mar 12, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Pre-Moistened-Cleaning-Wipes-Count/dp/B0030E4UIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426100878&sr=8-1&keywords=zeiss+lens+cleaning
> 
> I keep these with me in the bag at all times.
> 
> Ditto on filters. I have a B+W UV filter on every lens I own.



Me too. Blower, then brush to remove big particles. Then Zeiss wipe, followed by a microfiber cloth to dry. The Zeiss wipes are great and large enough to do a couple filters at the same time. I also have lens paper and a spray bottle of solution to use at home, but the wipes are much more convenient. Throw a couple in each bag along with a microfiber cloth, and you can do a field clean anytime, just blow the big particles off the old fashioned way.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 12, 2015)

Yep +1 for UV filter. Me personally I have a Marumi 77mm CPL filter on my 16-35. When I am doing stuff in low light i just take it off. But otherwise it stays on full time. I'd do the UV filter or any filter.

I used to worry and nitpick over image degradation with filters. There's no perceptible degradation if you use quality stuff. even at 100% pixel peeping. don't even worry about it. all my lenses are protected.

the only time you ever notice any difference if you're shooting into bright light sources. might get some reflections... but a high quality filter minimizes those to close to nothing


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2015)

I long ago took off all my B+W and Heliopan filters and put them away. Right away, there was enough increase in contrast and apparent sharpness that I only put them on when absolutely necessary due to weather or blowing dust. 

I really should sell them, I must have 15 or more of various sizes. I do occasionally use my polarizing filters, but only for shots where water is in the scene. I also have a couple ND filters, but they get almost no use, since I don't do significant video.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 12, 2015)

I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 12, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I long ago took off all my B+W and Heliopan filters and put them away. Right away, there was enough increase in contrast and apparent sharpness that I only put them on when absolutely necessary due to weather or blowing dust.
> 
> I really should sell them, I must have 15 or more of various sizes. I do occasionally use my polarizing filters, but only for shots where water is in the scene. I also have a couple ND filters, but they get almost no use, since I don't do significant video.



That's weird. I've never noticed any difference. And I'm an extremely picky pixel peeper. 3:1 all day long on a 27" iMac using various lenses, gears, manual, auto focus, mirror lock up, the works. Tested all kinds of scenarios. Lenstip and other sites have tested this too. Same findings. No difference down to pixel level. The reason you use them is simply for protection (Uv filters) 

So maybe you had very very poor filters or they were dirty--and no just because there's a famous name behind it doesn't mean those filters will be the best. I've seen some low performing B&Ws--mostly the difference is light transmission and flare. The only way I can see contrast difference is if you're shooting bright light sources and using poor filters with poor coatings that allows light to bounce around. Either way though I've tried cheap Tiffens and no difference down to pixel level. Your technique will make the biggest difference. If you like shooting "Raw" though that's fine. But I'd rather my filters get dirty than my front element!


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 12, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.



My opinion: keep your filters on. 

This was shot with a cheap Tiffen CPL stuck on the end of my 70-200 F4L and EOS M @ 200mm wide open. Do you need to get any sharper than this?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 12, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.
> ...



Looks like you were in my town for Mardi Gras ;-)


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't have imagined a simple UV filter (at least a high quality one) would present so obvious a difference. That said, I've not compared side by side in controlled conditions to test. You've got me curious now. I tend to just leave them on as an insurance policy.
> ...



Do that with a flaring light or low contrast and you will easily see the difference.

I have posted this before, it is a with and without UV filter.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 12, 2015)

So the more contrasty shot is without a UV filter? Thank you for the demo.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> So the more contrasty shot is without a UV filter? Thank you for the demo.



Yes, the more contrasty shot is the one without the UV filter.

EDIT: I mistakenly forgot to type 'out' on the with in my earlier reply! 

UV filters do impact image quality, sometimes so marginally as to be irrelevant, but sometimes much greater than that, I do not use UV filters unless I am in very harsh environments, very dusty or damp, stuff like that. I never considered UV filters as any kind of impact protection, the front elements and their coatings are much tougher than the filters and there's no end of images on line where broken filters have damaged front elements.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So the more contrasty shot is without a UV filter? Thank you for the demo.
> ...



I guessed wong then. Perhaps in some cases, a touch more luminous without the filter.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Mar 13, 2015)

Thanks for all the input.

I used a dirtier cloth at first, then tried a new cloth (not sure branding) which didn't help much. Last night I gave it a tried with the cloth provided by Canon CPS (new) and it worked great. The previous ones may have been cheaper ?brands/quality? 

As for filters, I have been back and forth. I have a bunch of Hoya, B&W and Rodenstock filters, but tend to use them rarely. I was pretty content on having the lens hoods as protection, but I realize that the shallow hoods (such as the wide angle lens ones - 17-40, 16-35) would offer less protection during a fall or bump.

I also change filters a lot of my wides (CPL, ND, GND) which I'd imagine increases the risk of dust accumulation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I apologize. You were right, I typed wrong!  I meant to type without but made a mistake, thanks for picking up on it I'd have hated the wrong impression to be out there.


----------



## wsheldon (Mar 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So the more contrasty shot is without a UV filter? Thank you for the demo.
> ...



I agree, so I tend to leave off filters unless needed for a shot (ND, CPL) or in rainy, sandy or dusty environments to complete the weather sealing on my 17-40L, 24-105L, etc. Filter quality and coatings do matter, though, and some lenses also appear to be more sensitive to ghosting and flare from filters than others (e.g. 100-400L), so I'm not surprised that experiences vary. Hood use also matters.

Here's a fun article about image degradation from cheap and high quality UV filters at LensRentals.com: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

Filters are such an annoying damned if you do, damned if you don't subject for me. I have some older UV filters (high quality B+W XS-Pro) that are scratched up and even chipped, so their value is obvious. OTOH, I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.

I don't think there's an answer - you can either be really careful, carry insurance, and don't use filters; or you can use them


----------



## bholliman (Mar 13, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.



+1 This is the main reason I've stopped using UV filters. I do a lot of shooting into the sun and ruined too many shots due to flare from forgetting to remove the filter. For me the disadvantages of UV filters (image degradation and flare) far outweigh the benefits.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Filters are such an annoying damned if you do, damned if you don't subject for me. I have some older UV filters (high quality B+W XS-Pro) that are scratched up and even chipped, so their value is obvious. OTOH, I have many ruined shots where I forgot or didn't have time to remove the filter in time (for the light) and the shots have flare artifacts or veiling flare in them.
> 
> I don't think there's an answer - you can either be really careful, carry insurance, and don't use filters; or you can use them



That is all true, but from empirical results I haven't used a 'protection' filter since the 1980's and whilst I am not an animal with my gear I certainly don't baby it. In all that time I have never damaged a front element, but I am a religious user of hoods and have cracked and knocked off a few of them!


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2015)

Highly recommend this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html


----------



## martti (Mar 14, 2015)

It is my choice, it is my front element. With the volcanic dust and salt spray in the air the protection filter makes sense. I was my eyeglasses three or four times a day under tap water so that I can see clearly. People could use their own judgement...how much does replacing a scratched front lens cost you, how much is a filter.
There is a lot of fundamentalism in photography. 
Fundamentalism roots in not having data as the basis of your decision making but beliefs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 14, 2015)

martti said:


> It is my choice, it is my front element. With the volcanic dust and salt spray in the air the protection filter makes sense. I was my eyeglasses three or four times a day under tap water so that I can see clearly. People could use their own judgement...how much does replacing a scratched front lens cost you, how much is a filter.
> There is a lot of fundamentalism in photography.
> Fundamentalism roots in not having data as the basis of your decision making but beliefs.



Of course it is yours, and of course you can do what you want.

I am just giving my long term experience, and the truth is the only damaged front elements I have actually seen have been damaged by protective filters scratching them when they get broken. Of course many front elements have been damaged without filters, I know of a guy who has broken his 17TS-E front element twice, but I didn't see it.

I have over 30 years of data and I have never damaged a front element and I rarely use a UV filter, though I do occasionally in very harsh environments on the lenses that need a filter for sealing reasons. Add in the results from my image impact test and I am sold on saving the $80 dollars average per lens (I have 8 lenses) and I have saved myself a shed load of money and even if I have to repair one eventually I have still saved money.


----------



## martti (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Ruined (Mar 14, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Highly recommend this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html



My suggestion as well, that one in particular is amazing for this lens.

There is only one real time when filters cause a noticeable artifact that is often difficult to remove: shooting into a bright light source. This will cause additional flare you would see much less of without the filter.

However, filters complete the weathersealing on the 16-35 f/4L and offer protection to the front element. Yes the front element is durable. Yes, the front element part is often affordable. But service charges can be expensive, and as the OP noted cleaning a filter like the one linked is much easier in the field than the lens itself. You can even clean it with your shirt as if it gets scratched you can simply replace it. You can worry less about the front element & environmental hazards with a filter, and instead focus on shooting the picture.

As long as you take the filter off when shooting into a bright light source (i.e. sun & moon at night), there is really not much of note that you lose quality-wise with a good filter.


----------

