# Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?



## Radiating (Feb 2, 2013)

It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all. 

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 2, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys?



A fly in the ointment at best. You grumble a little ... perhaps vent out your frustration at CR over the extra few $$$ in addition to the lens, but eventually get on with it. 



Radiating said:


> Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big,



If there are thinking that ... they must be idiots. Why should it be their business as to whether the buyer of the lens will be able to afford a new filter or not. 



Radiating said:


> are photographers really that thickle?



As I mentioned above, probably they grumble at most and get on with it. Cost of filters while important, is unlikely to be a material factor in buying an improved lens - maybe for a hobbyist but not for a pro. 



Radiating said:


> People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.



People on these boards complain about anything. It wouldn't have made a big difference if the new filter size was bigger than 82, a new filter would have been required anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2013)

Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that. Interesting information. Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 2, 2013)

But you do read it a lot in reviews, things like "this lens uses the popular 77mm thread so you don't have to buy more filters" and "this lens uses an 86mm thread which is bigger than the one it replaces so you'll have to factor that into the pricetag".

I remember I was annoyed when I had my 15-85 with 72mm threads, and a 72mm CPL, then I bought the Samyang 35/1.4 which had 77mm threads. I was only using it on APS-C so I just used a step-down with no vignetting. I also used my 67mm 70-300L with step-up rings to the 72mm CPL, and all my other 52mm and 58mm lenses with a 58mm CPL. But eventually I got sick of that and just bought a B+W KSM 67mm, and found a second-hand Hoya HRT 77mm CPL too (and a 52mm KSM for $20 second-hand recently too).

Then I got lenses with 82mm and 86mm threads, like a wide-angle MF lens (which is fine putting it on aps-c, but then I wanted to use it on native MF). I had to make a decision the other day, buy an 86mm CPL (normal price $200 for a B+W) or a 95mm (a Heliopan second-hand on ebay $100), when I realistically will never have a 95mm lens (unless I win the lottery and buy the Zeiss 15mm). I just went the 95mm and a step-up ring, it's just future-proof so i'll never have to worry about sizes again.

I'm sure there will be the complaints when canon releases the next lens with 95mm threads from a few people. But honestly, even retail a good CPL is only $300 max in that size, compared to what, a $3000 lens? Noone else uses the coloured filters anymore, they were mostly only for B+W film (I use them for B+W film), and GNDs like Lee and Cokin X-Pro you just buy another $20 adapter ring to your kit. So maybe in the film days it might have made a big difference (like see the entire range of Takumars all use the 49mm thread except for the extreme speed/lengths) but these days not so much because it's only one new CPL that you have to worry about.

If you have to take a new CPL into account when you make your pricing decision, then do so, but I don't think it would stop canon from releasing the lens, it'll just make a few vocal whingers come out on the forums.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 2, 2013)

I think 82mm is believable; 90+ mm not so much. Canon lens designers would have not wandered that far even conceptually...Canon R&D is not an academic institution...some of these critical parameters would have been set early on, even before time was allocated for them to waste. 82mm will keep them in the 16-35II range and will not come as a surprise.

I generally shy away from UV filters, the only ones of concern would be CPL and some ND's. And I already did all that with the 16-35II...and so have probably many others. So 82mm will not be a new hurdle. Canon for that reason will try and stay with 82 IMHO, if I were to hazard a guess. Some of my hard core friends use "filter systems" and would not view larger mm as a deal breaker.

Having said that, a heavy, expensive, 24-70mm range is not something I am keenly waiting on.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that. Interesting information. Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.


I never heard of it either. And I'm not sure why the addition of IS would change the filter size so much. 

Filter size is not a significant factor in my purchase decision. I think the 24-70 II is pretty fantastic just the way it is, even without the IS, so I'm not bothered if this story is true.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that. Interesting information. Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.



I have to say this would matter to me, for two reasons: 

* compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens hoods, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.

* price: there are only so many good 82mm filters (the b+w mrc nd filters are just being released), and they are very expensive. So if I pay €80 for a 77mm filter, €180 for a 82mm one I really don't want to know what 95mm filters with the "early adopters" premium would cost.

But I know people that can afford a €3000+ 24-70/2.8IS will be able to get around these limitations, but I like that the cheaper Tamron & current Canon mk2 "only" have 82mm threads.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 2, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> * compatibility: 82mm filters fit into all my lens caps, from the 70-300L to the 17-40L - with a 95mm nd/polarizer I'd have to shoot w/o any lens hood which I don't like because of protection & flare.



You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> You lost me with the lens cap thing... neither 70-300L nor 17-40L have 82mm filters.



Doh, typo - it is "hood", not "cap". Canon was smart enough that with a step-up adapter even 82mm filters fit into these lens hoods, I was surprised myself when I discovered it.


----------



## EdB (Feb 3, 2013)

Since I don't use screw in filters this wouldn't matter to me.


----------



## pwp (Feb 3, 2013)

The existing 24-70 f/2.8II is a pretty big lump of a thing, albeit a touch less of a brick than the lens it recently replaced. 

Quite aside from initial purchase price and the requirement to buy another set of 95mm thread filters (usually UV/protective & CPL) just think about the sheer mass of a lens with such a big diameter in an already crowded bag, not to mention the bulky CPL case in the side pocket along with the mandatory 77mm & 82mm CPL's. Whew!

If & when this lens ships, I'll almost certainly get one as it will mesh in perfectly with the way I like to work, but I really did value the days when everything in the bag was a neat 77mm.

-PW


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that. Interesting information. Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.



ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 3, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, for something "well-known" I've never heard that. Interesting information. Personally, a 95mm filter size would not have impacted my decision in purchasing such a lens.
> ...



Indeed! The sheer size would have totally made me want to get it!!! I love feeling beast when walking around with huge lenses... Mainly my 300 2.8, so... I need a huge walkaround lens to help!!!


----------



## ChilledXpress (Feb 3, 2013)

Radiating is the same poster who said the 100L has harsh bokeh and SHOULD NEVER be used for portratits. Also stated that he owned a 24-70L f/4 and it was garbage. And now spouting off "facts" about 24-70L IS... which he probably owns ?!?!?!

"...are photographers really that thickle?" No Radiating, just you.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 3, 2013)

If they put a filter that size, I'd just give me another reason to buy a tamron 24-70Vc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

Radiating said:


> It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes



Out of curiuosity, can you provide links to patents or pics of a prototype 24-70/2.8 IS lens?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 3, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size



I just got the business idea of dslr tuning - make it appear more impressive by adding false elements to the front, dummy buttons to the back for a more difficult pro-look, a *double* red ring as a chick magnet ... just like car tuning with spoilers, lower chassis and broader tires (that actually slow you down) :->


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size
> ...



Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!


----------



## Rat (Feb 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I just got the business idea of dslr tuning


I like  Also, facts or not, I like the word 'thickle' and most of all I like the info about 82mm filters fitting all my 77mm lenses. Thanks, Marsu42! Ordered a step-up-ring for starters, this would be great for filters I only want to buy once, such as a cpl. Not everyone has the purchasing power of a small country (I'm looking at you, neuro  ) and budget constraints are important to me.

Mind you, if I could shell out the 3K+ for a 24-70/2.8IS, I would *not* skimp on the filters - a 95mm B+W MRC would be less than 200 bucks and that's not double the highest I've ever paid. However, a lens with a 95mm front element might get drop-in filters. I know there are even 105mm filters, but I don't know of any lens that would take 'em.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!



Oh no, don't give Canon any ideas, they'll reissue the 50/1.8 with this design and add a zero at the end of the price


----------



## brad-man (Feb 3, 2013)

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO uses a 105mm. The soon to be released updated version might be a nice companion for the Canon 24-70 IS...


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 3, 2013)

Radiating said:


> It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.
> 
> Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.
> 
> Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.



I'm not sure what you're evidence for that is but I doubt that this is the only reason. A 90-some filter size would also mean a lot more glass, weight - well and cost. The extra cost for filters would likely be a drop in the bucket at that point.

I'm sure it's more a marketing decision as to what they can really sell and for how much. I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.

The regular 24-70 type zooms have been plenty good for decades and I don't see how the weight/cost/size trade-off for IS would be valuable for those people who rely on them every day. Canon strikes me as one of those companies that is really good at analyzing their markets (despite the occasional clunker).


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes
> ...



USPTO and google return lots of patents related to the 24-70 f/4 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8 but zero patents to a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS~


----------



## Rat (Feb 3, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.


I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well - you don't always have time to mind your balance and occasionally you might even want to make a running shot. Sometimes you just need to shoot and hope for the best, and IS will help you improve the odds in such cases.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Indeed! The sheer size would have totally made me want to get it!!! I love feeling beast when walking around with huge lenses... Mainly my 300 2.8, so... I need a huge walkaround lens to help!!!



lol... Me too. That would be a awesome looking lens! The bigger the better! I think the decision to not release the IS version was about the price point rather than filter size. The 24-70 IS could be the new number one lens used by pros, but $3000+ would send most people running to Tamron or other cheaper alternatives.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 3, 2013)

Actually, if the 24-70 f/2.8 IS had a front element that large, wouldn't Canon just make it work with their drop-in filters? Seems silly to imagine they would even allow a 95mm front filter ring when they have another system already designed to solve the problem. And, it brings more filter customers (where a 95mm filter would mean cash for B+W, etc).

But, I agree that the premise is crap. All the lenses where they have non-IS and IS versions usually have the same filter size (70-200's for example). And they can do 24 f/2.8 IS with a 58mm filter size. So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

preppyak said:


> So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?



I'm not a Canon engineer, but I was thinking the same thing. Tamron did it with an 82mm filter. Why can't Canon?


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!



LOL... winter is awful and lasts way too long and with lenses that aren't weather sealed, I have used strips of stretch parafilm at the lens/mount-joint or the whole lens if it is internally focusing.

Granted, it doesn't look as clean as the pimped out nifty-fifty you posted. 
It looks like ghetto bandaid holding up the lens and falls off more often than not.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 3, 2013)

Rat said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.
> ...



This of course has been discussed n times - and even wedding photogs who shoot posed candids would profit from the IS, though it's not strictly necessary for events because of subject movement and IS lock in time.



FatDaddyJones said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?
> ...



Probably Canon marketing thought impressive glass size to be necessary to make the €3500 price tag appear more justified


----------



## bvukich (Feb 3, 2013)

This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 3, 2013)

It would have nearly looked like a 200mm 2.0 front lens lolz


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 3, 2013)

bvukich said:


> This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.



Also, some of the posts give the impression that a front elelement over 90mm is a done deal and build further on that soft-cheese foundation. I think the 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm filters (and the legacy smaller sizes) will be the consumer L lens range for many years to come.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

As I said before, if Tamron could do it, so can Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2013)

bvukich said:


> This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.



Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP. I wonder if he can produce some... :


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

A google search led me back here to another post mentioning the 24-70 and a 95mm filter size. OP was the same that mentioned it in the other thread. Not sure where the info is from. Radiating, where did you hear about the 95mm filter size?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.
> ...


I too wonder how he came up with 95 ... why not 86? or 82?
But gotta admit that a 95mm front element would make a relatively modest sized 24-70mm lens look awesomely intimidating.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 3, 2013)

I've never heard that one either, but a larger front element would boost the price a lot for a relatively small difference in size, perhaps even double the price. Those large lens elements ground to less than a millionth of a inch accuracy get insanely expensive as they get larger. The cost of a larger filter would only be a few hundred dollars.


----------



## Meh (Feb 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.
> ...



Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning? Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.


----------



## gary (Feb 3, 2013)

I would never base my decision to buy what would be a really expensive lens on the size or cost of a filter, only on the quality of the photographs that could be achieved with it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 3, 2013)

Meh said:


> Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning? Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.



Yeah, it's Canon _Rumors_ and not Canon _Facts_ for a reason


----------



## pwp (Feb 3, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.



You may have steadier hands than average. I certainly don't have a case of the "trembles" but do achieve a clear benefit from IS on my 24-105 f/4is and of course the 70-200 f/2.8isII. A 24-70 f/2.8is would be a very useful bit if kit for me. I just ache for IS on my 135 f/2.

Some people have the gift of steady hands. For the rest of us, IS = more keepers.

-PW


----------



## Meh (Feb 3, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning? Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.
> ...



What do facts have to do with anything, people don't want facts interfering with their opinions.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 4, 2013)

FatDaddyJones said:


> A google search led me back here to another post mentioning the 24-70 and a 95mm filter size. OP was the same that mentioned it in the other thread. Not sure where the info is from. Radiating, where did you hear about the 95mm filter size?



Canon experimented with 2 different possible image stabilized f/2.8 zooms. There are patents for them available on both Canonwatch.com and egami.com, and canonrumors.com

The first of these two lenses is a 28-70mm f/2.8 IS, with a filter size of 86mm. The second was a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS with a filter size of 95mm, (although it could have used 90mm filters, if anyone made those).

The 24-70mm II uses I beleive (don't quote me on the precise number) a 68mm front element with an 82mm filter size. The 24-70mm f/2.8 IS used a 77.29mm front element!

Other sources, such as Canonrumors themselves do add that it's not strictly the sheer size of the lens that was an issue (or it's resulting filter size) but that as a result of it's size it also weighed a ton and the lens elements were expensive due to their size. Though this thread is focusing more on the filter size issue being serious enough to be partly responsible for killing a lens, and if that's justified. I'm sure there are tons of other threads that cover whether the size and weight of a lens are an issue people care about.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 4, 2013)

Radiating said:


> FatDaddyJones said:
> 
> 
> > A google search led me back here to another post mentioning the 24-70 and a 95mm filter size. OP was the same that mentioned it in the other thread. Not sure where the info is from. Radiating, where did you hear about the 95mm filter size?
> ...



Just did a search on the USPTO/google patent and there are no patents for anything related to a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. Loads of references to the 24-70 f/2.8 MKII and 24-70 f/4 IS. It could not be published yet, but I want to see the source material from the websites as nothing shows up in searching on them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2013)

General comment: If this rumor is true, it seems to me there won't be a 24-70IS at all?! Not that it would matter to me, a €3000+ price tag is not in my budget region for a standard zoom anymore.



Meh said:


> What do facts have to do with anything, people don't want facts interfering with their opinions.



Most people of course are open to interfering facts - but in my experience it is often discovered that these facts, after due inspection, either aren't really proven/applicable or even magically validate the seemingly contradicting opinion as the exception to the rule  



Radiating said:


> The 24-70mm II uses I beleive (don't quote me on the precise number) a 68mm front element with an 82mm filter size. The 24-70mm f/2.8 IS used a 77.29mm front element!



So in simple layman's terms a Canon 24-70/2.8IS needs larger glass elements to be sharper than the 82mm Tamron 24-70vc, or does the Canon IS have another construction that is larger than Tamron VC?

I have to admit I don't quite understand it yet because I imagined the IS being build *around* the lens, but now it seems like the IS needs some glass "headroom", at least in the front element, to work because the angle of the lens changes slightly when IS is at work?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Canon experimented with 2 different possible image stabilized f/2.8 zooms. There are patents for them available on both Canonwatch.com and egami.com, and canonrumors.com
> ...



RMC33 - Your Google-fu is weak, Grasshopper. 

Radiating - Thanks, although a link would have been helpful.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is/


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...


 
Thats the one. Upon searching it again it shows up in tandem with the MKII, f/4 IS and a few others. ~


----------



## Rat (Feb 4, 2013)

Could someone explain why these specs indicate a need for 95mm filters? As far as I can tell, a 82mm thread would be enough...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2013)

Rat said:


> Could someone explain why these specs indicate a need for 95mm filters? As far as I can tell, a 82mm thread would be enough...



They don't, necessarily. But if you look at the 24-70 (both verisons), the front of the lens has a ring of reasonable diameter (sufficient to print the lens ID info) around the front element, meaning the filter diameter is a fair bit larger than the front element. Not all lens designs have that much space (and some have a lot more). 

Does Canon have a reason for designing it that way? Probably. Note that a quick comparison of this image suggests that the front element of both versions of the 24-70L is pretty close to the same size, but the MkII uses an 82mm vs. a 77mm filter. Reasons could be to reduce chances of mechanical vignetting with a filter in place, to allow space for a more robust bracket setup to hold the front element, etc.


----------



## helpful (Feb 4, 2013)

Image quality is affected by filters depending on the quality of the filter and on the surface area of the filter.

The larger the surface area of the filter, the greater the reduction in image quality. (You can see this with a softening filter--when your lens is stopped down, the effective diameter and surface area of the filter are reduced. When the surface area goes down, the image quality goes up, and hence there is less of a "softening" effect from the softening filter at smaller apertures (large f numbers).)

A filter with twice the diameter has four times the area. Large filters are bad in this way.

But ultimately, it is due to the expense--the larger the filter, the more expensive it is to make one the same quality as a smaller filter.

In fact, achieving that same level of filter quality isn't enough because even at the same level of filter quality the image quality will still be worse because of the larger area.


----------

