# Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)



## RS2021 (Dec 11, 2012)

The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on your EF 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?

The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.

Because ultimately, actions speak louder than well thought out intentions. We all know the usual arguments for and against using UV filters that proponents use to support claims. Some fall back on specific lenses, where IQ may suffer vs. need to protect the front element, and needing it to complete weather sealing etc etc...it is frequently a slew of compromise explanations. 

Let us try and gauge what we actually do in practice by taking a lens owned by good many, granted not all; and of 'relatively' decent $ value; with consensus on high IQ (that could arguably be degraded by a haze filter). To increase the sample size, either of the 2.8L IS versions are ok. This lens choice also hopefully ensures we aren't sampling exorbitant superteles or the lower price range lenses; but, something narrowly defined, commonly possessed, yet valuable.

In voting, please let only your actions speak. No "oh I could have" or "oh I wish I had" answers... No fudging...simple question: did you have it on during its most recent use?


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)*



Ray2021 said:


> The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?
> 
> The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.
> 
> ...



Did you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)*



infared said:


> Did you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS?



Yes, else I think we may lose the relatively narrow sampling. I will edit title to include "EF".
Edit. And I didn't even catch the typo in the initial response here. Yikes.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)*

28-700? Where can I find this lens? 

Are you looking only for UV protective filters or UV and clear protective filters?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 11, 2012)

*Re: Did you use a UV filter on 28-700 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)*



FTb-n said:


> 28-700? Where can I find this lens?
> 
> Are you looking only for UV protective filters or UV and clear protective filters?



Corrected now 
For the purpose of this poll any "protective" filters... Being more specific will produce too small an 'n'.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2012)

Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.



Or Alec Baldwin comin at ya swinging...but then it may not help much


----------



## helpful (Dec 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Neither that lens, or any other, for that matter unless ambient conditions make it a good idea, like a sand or dust storm.



+1


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 11, 2012)

I have a Hoya HD1 UV Filter on there for protection. For my 24-70 II, I purchased a Hoya HD1 Clear Protecter instead of a UV Filter


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2012)

YES. I use a B&W 77mm 010 UV Haze MRC Brass Ring. Always attached to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The lens cost me $2400. I am protecting it! 
All I know is ...every time I shoot with it and pull the images up on screen from my 5D III...I say
.."This photo is so sharp, I can't believe this is a f*#king zoom lens!!!!!" ....so I am protecting the lens and getting great images. You bareback riders that scratch your lenses ....so sorry. (BTW..I never said that when I owned version I of the lens...and it was the lens..not the filter).
I have B&W filters on all of my lenses...my lenses all cost a LOT OF MONEY..but I will occasionally take the the filter off of a wide angle to shoot as I think that at extreme angles of view the filter can cut down sharpness...I should do a test some day....but I doubt that I could truly tell the difference. For normal and tele lenses...I know I can tell no difference between high-grade filter and no filter. IMHO it is just academic for me. ...but everyone has their own opinion.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.



I don't use them much myself ... but I know many do and swear by it. Is this because you feel there is no perceptible change whatsoever in high-performing lenses or you have made your peace with the potential trade off for possible protection? And, I did say "potential" trade-off.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.
> ...



I want to protect my front element from cleaning, scratching, chemicals, abrasives, small meteorites from space or anything else from touching it. A UV filter already saved my 24L II once and will continue to use them. 

I cannot distinguish IQ loss from the filter, B&ws are that good.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 14, 2012)

Does the 70-200 II vignette with the F-Pro at the widest setting?
I remember Neuro saying something like that, but can't remember for sure :-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> Does the 70-200 II vignette with the F-Pro at the widest setting?
> I remember Neuro saying something like that, but can't remember for sure :-\



Actually, I didn't test at 70mm, only at 100mm. But there, the F-Pro did cause a _slight_ increase in optical vignetting (there's some natively, of course). I switched to an XS-Pro for that lens.


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 14, 2012)

I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 14, 2012)

I don´t use UV filters or other protective filters. I use only Pol-, ND- and GND-filters.


----------



## infared (Dec 14, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.



Any particular brand?


----------



## Zusje (Dec 14, 2012)

I use a Hoya HD, and I have noticed vignetting at 70mm on the 5Diii, just thought it was the lens on FF but perhaps it is the filter, will have to try it without and see :-\


----------



## pwp (Dec 14, 2012)

Thirty years experience has taught me to use UV/protective filters on every lens at all times. Over time filters have taken knocks that have prevented damage to front elements and to the filter thread which is surprisingly easily damaged. I replace the UV/protective filters every few years as they degrade with fine scratching from repeated cleaning with occasionally less than perfect lens-wipes like handkerchiefs, shirts, ties, a best-man's coat tails, tea-towels, tissues or whatever falls to hand when you need an instant fix. I don't worry too much when the shot of the day beckons...the filters are relatively cheap and user replaceable. Even the front element of a 300 f/2.8 is deliberately not an optical lens, it's relatively inexpensive to have replaced by Canon. So use your shirt if you have to.

Tests I have done using new, high quality filters show no discernible IQ degradation when compared to filterless. Optics scientists with too much time on their hands may have tools to prove a difference, but in the real-world of day to day image making, experience has proved to me that it's always best to wear your protection.

-PW


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 14, 2012)

i only use uv filter on my lenses when it's raining or other risks for paid shoots i want the best that i can get from my glass and sticking a cheap piece of glass in front of my expensive lens is only going to do one thing...degrade the image quality whether it matters to you or not is your choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2012)

pwp said:


> Even the front element of a 300 f/2.8 is deliberately not an optical lens, it's relatively inexpensive to have replaced by Canon.



That's true for the MkI supertele lenses, but not the MkII versions - the protective meniscus lens was removed from the design, presumably to save weight.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


+1000 = Big Ditto! I use high quality B&W and Hoya HD thin ring filters for all of my lenses.
Only difference is I will swap for a slightly cheaper Hoya filter on the 70-200 during swim meets due to splashing and I don't want the chlorine to damage a more expensive filter. One gripe I have with a nice B&W CPL I have is that it requires a hammer, vise or machine shop to remove.


----------



## sleepnever (Dec 14, 2012)

I've got a B+W multi-coat super thin something or another on my 24-70L v1 and I've shot with it and without it in bright sun and other things. I cannot tell the difference in IQ, especially attached to my 5D3. $80 for a filter is way better than worrying about scratches on my front glass.
I realize this isn't the 70-200, but when I get mine (have rented 3x), it will get a filter too.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 14, 2012)

pwp said:


> Thirty years experience has taught me to use UV/protective filters on every lens at all times. Over time filters have taken knocks that have prevented damage to front elements and to the filter thread which is surprisingly easily damaged.



Agreed. Mine never come off. One less thing to worry about if it does rain too as the lens are only "weather proof" with a filter.


----------



## joshmurrah (Dec 14, 2012)

I answered yes. I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1) Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2) It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3) The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add: LOL at the cling wrap response!!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> joshmurrah said:
> 
> 
> > I answered yes. I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.
> ...



How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned. 

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens.


----------



## tron (Dec 14, 2012)

YES! a Hoya UV HD. I would put a filter even on a cheaper lens (even my cheapest lens, a 50mm f/1.8 version 1 has one).


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 14, 2012)

OK, you need to subtract one from the "yes" column. I shouldn't have voted but couldn't resist. Wonder if there are others who are screwing up your results???? I do have a filter virtually all the time on my 70-200 f4 L IS (don't remember which brand - will upgrade to B&H when I get around to it).


----------



## joshmurrah (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> joshmurrah said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
> ...



Good call on point 1, I confirmed your findings. I guess it was strongly on my mind since I am looking into the 16-35 II, and the reviews point out the moving/breathing/vented front element. The 70-200 2.8's don't need a filter to be weatherproof.

on #3, a sharp impact really isn't what I'm thinking of, I'm thinking more of small scrapes, dust, speck of mud, fingerprint you left/didn't see, etched onto the glass over time, you name it... I'd rather the filter take that versus the front element... easier to clean, and sacrificial if need-be.l

I do agree that it's small potatoes either way, we're really making a mountain out of a mole-hill, especially if you're already using the lens hood all of the time.


----------



## xstntl (Dec 14, 2012)

never do unless there is weather/conditions where I need the protection


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> 1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.



...and the 50L, so it's good that RLPhoto had that filter in place. 

I'll also add that Chuck Westfall (Canon's tech support guru) has recommended using filters on all sealed L-series lenses with front threads.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



1. I always use lens hoods but that won't always save your lens or front element.

2. The filter is a second line of protection. As for shattering glass, I've had one shatter on my 24L II and simply unscrewed it, and continued to shoot the rest of the event. If I didn't have one, There would be one less 24L II in the world.

3. In the heat of good shots, stopping to carefully clean beer off your front element shows a lack of preparation as a candid-man and your in-experience to your employer. 

Did you get those shots? You stopped because of that? Wheres your *Filter*?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> _"3. In the heat of good shots, stopping to carefully clean beer off your front element shows a lack of preparation as a candid-man and your in-experience to your employer.
> 
> Did you get those shots? You stopped because of that? Wheres your Filter?"_
> 
> ...



That comment alone speaks for itself about your experiences.


----------



## sullivan06 (Dec 14, 2012)

-Never on my 70-200. I only use a filter on my 24-70.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Does the 70-200 II vignette with the F-Pro at the widest setting?
> ...



Thanks. I'd go XS-Pro then.


----------



## iaind (Dec 19, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.



For use with a 5dIII without initial mod substitute black stretchfilm


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 20, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.



You buy a US$ 2,XXX lens and then use cling wrap (presume that is the same as cling film)? Why not just get a good filter?


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

i agree with professional wedding photographer joe buissink
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/lenses_for_weddings.do


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> PeterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I use plastic cling wrap. Apart from protecting the lens it seems to have good static properties that draw the dust out of my lens. Plus from experience growing up it kept fungus out of my lunch so I think same applies for a lens, my sardine sandwiches never went green even if I didn't fancy them for a few days.
> ...



No, the whole point of cling wrap is that it's thinner than any filter and helps with the weather sealing. Also, I used to gel my flash, but with the new colored cling wraps, I can get that effect across the whole picture, and that's a lot easier than just adjusting the hue in post. 

Even more important, my US$13,000 600/4 II can't even take a front filter. How lame is that?!? Fortunately, cling wrap works just fine.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, the whole point of cling wrap is that it's thinner than any filter and helps with the weather sealing. Also, I used to gel my flash, but with the new colored cling wraps, I can get that effect across the whole picture, and that's a lot easier than just adjusting the hue in post.
> 
> Even more important, my US$13,000 600/4 II can't even take a front filter. How lame is that?!? Fortunately, cling wrap works just fine.



Thanks. Interesting. There seems to be a lot of difference between what happens in the US and what happens in the Far East, at least at pro journo level. I am in numerous press conferences every week, major sporting events frequently and have never seen anyone use cling film (or wrap as you call it). Mind you, I have never seen coloured cling film either. Live and learn.

And, why would you want a filter on your 600/4? The lens hood is big enough as it is.


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

take from it only the point about UV filter please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > No, the whole point of cling wrap is that it's thinner than any filter and helps with the weather sealing. Also, I used to gel my flash, but with the new colored cling wraps, I can get that effect across the whole picture, and that's a lot easier than just adjusting the hue in post.
> ...



Because I love cling wrap. I put it on my camera lenses, on my microscope objectives at work costing far more than the 600 II, on my sunglasses, on the windshield of my car and on the windows of my house. I just can't get enough of it. I'm thinking of wrapping my whole house in cling wrap, and then maybe my cat. Meow. 

And because I'm honestly afraid that you still might not get it, the whole line of discussion around cling wrap, starting from where the sardine sandwiches didn't turn green, is *satire*. 

Yuk it up, these are the jokes.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

Hmm ...with n= 80+, may be a dirty non parametric test is in order?


----------



## bycostello (Dec 20, 2012)

more glass less IQ


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

bycostello said:


> more glass less IQ



Thanks for that pithy explanation. I've always wondered why the 70-200/2.8L IS II with its 23 elements has so much less IQ than the 35/2 with only 7 elements. Now I know.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

bycostello said:


> more glass less IQ



That's my general bias as well, though I fully admit this is not based on any sound comparison. But personal perceptions matter. And I don't have filters on high end glass. 

However, the point of this thread was, even if you hold such a perception that sticking another piece of glass on a precision engineered optical system is awful, is there a point at which you balance the potential protection afforded by this added glass with the potential smidgen of trade off in IQ of a high quality lens? And I did say potential. 

It appears a fair number do think it is justified.


----------



## Trovador (Dec 20, 2012)

I never use a UV filter. I agree with those who feel that adding a 100 piece of glass in front of a 2000 state of the art lens degrades IQ. I understand the need to protect that investment though, I always use the hood which does protect a bit and am extremely careful.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > more glass less IQ
> ...



Perhaps... but one can still contend the caveat is the glass being added from B+W, Hoya, or tiffin or even high end pro versions of whatever brand was not part of the original optical design while the 20 odd elements or just 7 elements would have been carefully chosen to play well together.


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > take from it only the point about UV filter please.
> ...


if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying.
ok i apologise uv filters can not harm image quality they better it what a lot of crap the only thing uv filters or protection filters will do is degrade image quality.


----------



## dafrank (Dec 20, 2012)

No.

I never use filters on any of my lenses unless there is a very particular reason for it. Long gone are the days when my serious film shooting required carrying around: about 60 different color correction and ND 4" Kodak gel filters, a dozen or so glass ones and a dozen or so plastic graduated filters of different color and density spreads, filter holders, thin guage black gaffer tape to work on lenses the filter holders didn't work with, my color temperatrure meter, self-made reciprocity failure and artificial lighting type correction charts custom made and researched for every individual film stock that specified filtering at various shutter speeds and lighting conditions. Good riddance! Now, things are a lot simpler and my use of filters massively curtailed. 

For instance, in cases where atmospheric haze or high altitude is a factor, I will use a very specifically tuned UV filter (one of two B&W's that were ridiculously expensive), or if there is some environmental factor such as industrial grit or outdoor sand or rain/snow/sleet blowing towards the lens, I will use the mildest UV I own just to protect it.

Of course, I do use good quality polarizing filters when it would genuinely help an image or correct a problem with an image, as well as color correction, ND or graduated filters on the very rare occasions when changing camera settings or PP wouldn't work as well.

The days of always using a filter on the lens to "filter" every shot, due to a general inadequacy of the lens color response are long gone. Pretty much all modern photo lenses sufficiently filter UV on their own, and are color biased so that they also don't need the slightly pink filtering afforded by the ubiquitous "skylight" filter.

As for physical protection, some photographers who constantly work in situations where rough treatment might lead to physical scratches, or other similar damage to the front element, would be wise to keep a weak UV filter on the lens merely to "sacrifice" it in the event of disaster, instead of the front lens element. Neither my work, nor my pleasure shooting, fall into that category, so my 70-200, and all the others in my kit, are usually used "bare-as#ed-naked."

Regards,
David


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying



One article, by someone I've never heard of, clearly sponsored by Canon's marketing department. On the other hand, Chuck Westfall, Canon's technical guru, advises using a UV or protection filter on all L series sealed lenses that accept front filters.


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > if on one article canon advise you to use a uv filter why the hell would the would they or joe lie about this think about what you are saying
> ...


yeah canon state that yo need a uv filter to complete weather sealing.Either way who honestly really cares some buy there 1800 lens and want to protect it with filter i use a filter when raining and near sea spray etc,but any other time that is in the bag.


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

Jackson_Bill said:


> FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.


what happened?i have been shooting for years and yet to damage a front element and im pretty hard on my gear.if the uv filter smashes theres a good chance your filter will damage your front element anyway so i guess you mean from scratches


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 20, 2012)

I use filters sometimes for lens protection. It doesn't affect IQ at noticeable levels if at all. Have you honestly ever looked at a photo and gone, "oh shoot I shoulnd't have had that darn B+W UV filter on!" And FWIW, nobody cares if you don't use filters. Don't try to convince me to not use them because I don't care why you don't.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 20, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.
> ...



From Bill's avatar photo...I think your right...bear claw scratches


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I use filters sometimes for lens protection. It doesn't affect IQ at noticeable levels if at all. Have you honestly ever looked at a photo and gone, "oh shoot I shoulnd't have had that darn B+W UV filter on!" And FWIW, nobody cares if you don't use filters. Don't try to convince me to not use them because I don't care why you don't.


i use them in certain situations like i said and in scotland thats a lot lol


----------



## Shakarpix (Dec 20, 2012)

I've always had UV's on for protection.


----------



## Chris Burch (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> And because I'm honestly afraid that you still might not get it, the whole line of discussion around cling wrap, starting from where the sardine sandwiches didn't turn green, is *satire*.
> 
> Yuk it up, these are the jokes.



I'm quite concerned that people thought you were actually serious.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because I love cling wrap. I put it on my camera lenses, on my microscope objectives at work costing far more than the 600 II, on my sunglasses, on the windshield of my car and on the windows of my house. I just can't get enough of it. I'm thinking of wrapping my whole house in cling wrap, and then maybe my cat. Meow.
> 
> And because I'm honestly afraid that you still might not get it, the whole line of discussion around cling wrap, starting from where the sardine sandwiches didn't turn green, is *satire*.
> 
> Yuk it up, these are the jokes.



Ahh, satire, jokes. Guess I just didn't find it at all funny. My bad. ;-)


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 20, 2012)

unless you are crazy, or have money to burn, or are extremely careful, this 2k+ lens should have a filter in front of that front element.
Whether you want to act like a purist, or dont like filters for whatever reason (yawn), i cant see a good reason why it shouldn tbe there. Well, if yer not cheap about it anyways.


----------



## rpt (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


May be mandatory use of <sarcasm/> or <satire/> or plain <humour/> is in order 

Oh, I voted no as now I have no filters permanently fitted on my lenses. Earlier I had and I can see the ones I used did cause degradation of the image. Some time soon (or later) I will look into getting some good filters...


----------



## mrmarks (Dec 21, 2012)

Voted yes but it's not a uv filter but a clear filter. No need for uv filter (cuts off light unnecessarily) as the sensor has a uv coating, and a good clear filter does not affect IQ. I'm using B+W xs-pro clear MRC filter on all my lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> Voted yes but it's not a uv filter but a clear filter. No need for uv filter (cuts off light unnecessarily) as the sensor has a uv coating, and a good clear filter does not affect IQ. I'm using B+W xs-pro clear MRC filter on all my lenses.



A UV filter doesn't cut off any light which the sensor can detect - as you state, a dSLR is basically insensitive to UV. A multicoated UV and clear filter from the same maker will have the same visible light transmittance (usually ~99%). For a dSLR, there is no difference between UV and clear in terms of optics. So...pick whichever is cheaper at your chosen source (it varies by country and seller).


----------



## scrup (Dec 21, 2012)

It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.

Lets put this into perspective.

For the ones that have it permanently on do you guys buy the paint protection for your brand new car as well?
How about eye protection when you go out of your house. After all your eyes are more important than any L lens.

This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.
The most infuriating thing for me is filters on the 18-55mm efs kit lens. Who here would seriously recommend for someone to use a filter on this lens?

Some other interesting reads.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157630037025174/
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2012)

scrup said:


> This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.



Hmmmm...I wonder if bubble wrap would work better than cling wrap? :


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2012)

scrup said:


> It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.
> 
> Lets put this into perspective.
> 
> ...



If the protection provided has the same level of protection as the filters I use, I wouldn't mind a clear, in discernible force field around my car. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 21, 2012)

scrup said:


> It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.
> 
> Lets put this into perspective.
> 
> ...



The fact that people using filters as protection bothers you? That concerns me more than anything.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.
> ...



I think it certainly would provide better bokeh


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.
> ...


That's another technique I use often. It works like a compound eye and apart from an increased angle of view I find sometimes I can detect the light polarisation and later post-process, instead of carrying around an expensive CP that of course also loses some stops of light.


----------



## ellenoir (Dec 21, 2012)

The last time i didn't use filter on my 70-200, the front lens scratched when put it in 70-200 case. So badly. so, i choose to wear a protective glass.


----------



## scrup (Dec 21, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> The fact that people using filters as protection bothers you? That concerns me more than anything.



I don't like sales people recommending filters for efs kit lenses as everyday protection. Cheap filters degrade quality and I learnt first hand when i got my 40D a few years ago. 

There are hazardous situations that you will need protection which is fair enough but i don't think most of us here shoot in those conditions day in day out.


----------



## rpt (Dec 21, 2012)

ellenoir said:


> The last time i didn't use filter on my 70-200, the front lens scratched when put it in 70-200 case. So badly. so, i choose to wear a protective glass.


Cap it before you bag it. Otherwise filter it...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 21, 2012)

scrup said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that people using filters as protection bothers you? That concerns me more than anything.
> ...



I got you now. Yes I suppose it would be irritating if a sales pitch "heightened" the need for them, when it may not be so serious of a matter. Actually, most of the "filters" I use are ND or CP's. But of course those are special situations.


----------



## ellenoir (Dec 28, 2012)

rpt said:


> ellenoir said:
> 
> 
> > The last time i didn't use filter on my 70-200, the front lens scratched when put it in 70-200 case. So badly. so, i choose to wear a protective glass.
> ...



yes, i will.


----------



## Hodag (Jan 1, 2013)

bornshooter said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, the UV filter (I'm on my third one now) has saved the front lens on my 70-200 f2.8L IS twice.
> ...



Not really, but if you drive without a seatbelt, because you don't have accidents you're just fine. 

I have a collection of scratched and cracked filters and I'm fairly careful. One the wind blew over a tripod (when a freight train came from the opposite direction at about 80MPH) fell on the lens face. Another a car kicked up a small bucket full of gravel and threw it at me. (of course I was standing on the edge of a race track)  

Best reason is, when something gets on the filter, I grab a corner of my shirt and wipe it off, and I'm back working. If I ruin a filter, so what? Also there's rain, dust, bugs, sap, branches, mist, spray, and sticky fingers, unless you only shoot indoors.

And no I've never found that a UV or Haze filter ruins my images. But I have found that it's possible to save my lens from _accidents_. Every lens I own gets a filter when it's new, and it stays on forever.


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2013)

One time I had my camera hanging from my shoulder, 70-200 pointing down with the lens hood in place, and my camera started getting tugged. I looked down and found a dog with its nose up the lens hood - the filter needed a good clean after that. OK, its nothing that would have ruined the front element, but you never know what's going to happen.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 1, 2013)

This is an expensive lens, so it's to be expected owners would like to protect it.

Of the lenses I have, it's the one I'm most worried would be damaged, though I have my photography equipment insured.

Yet, I don't use a UV filter for this lens. If I was shooting in a hostile environment, say a desert or rain, I would use one. In the urban environment I usually shoot, I feel using the hood when shooting and the cap when returning the lens to the bag are sufficient protection, and wasn't disappointed so far.

Another angle is that a quality 77mm UV filter isn't cheap either. It's cheaper than the lens or fixing it, but I would still worry it would get damaged, so why use one unless it's actually needed?


----------



## enice128 (Jan 1, 2013)

I use clear uv filters on ALL my glass! Make sure its a good quality one, at least spend the $ on a b&w one! The least u can do is protect ur expensive glass. The less expensive filters will effect the quality of ur images plus god forbid u bang the front element u only damage the filter not the lens!


----------

