# Canon Protective Filter Question



## wsmith96 (Oct 16, 2012)

I just purchased the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 lenses and I'm looking to get protective filters for them. I've been reading quite a bit regarding lens filters as, at least for my budget, I have invested quite a bit of money in my new lenses. The recommendations always come back to B+W and Hoya. I have found very little in regards to the protective filters made by Canon (or OEM'd - Canon product support said they made them, but not sure if they consider OEMing "making" them), or rather, any filter made by Canon. Are there any online reviews I can see, or has someone done a comparison between Canon and other brands? I like to research before I buy and I figure that a Canon product would work best on a Canon product, but it concerns me that most people are purchasing other brands. What can I say, I over analyze but I'd rather buy right and buy once and not have shoppers remorse. Any guidance or information on Canon filters is appreciated.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

wsmith96 said:


> I just purchased the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 lenses and I'm looking to get some protective filters for them. I've been reading quite a bit regarding lens filters as, at least for my budget, I have invested quite a bit of money in my new lenses. The recommendations always come back to pretty much B+W and Hoya. I have found very little in regards to the protective filters made by canon (or OEM'd - canon product support said they made them, but not sure if they consider OEMing "making" them), or rather, any filter made by Canon. Are there any online reviews I can see, or has someone done a comparison between canon and other brands? I like to research before I buy and I figure that a canon product would work best on a a canon product, but it concerns me that most people are purchasing other brands. What can I say, I over analyze but I'd rather buy right and buy once and not have shoppers remorse. Any guidance or information on Canon filtes is appreciated.



I Use B&W MRC UV filter on all my L Primes. They're awesome. No IQ loss what so ever.

I used a Hoya once and I didn't like the IQ hit I took from it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

Canon filters were, at some point, OEM'd by Tiffen. Not sure if that is still the case, but the quality of B+W filters is well known, and well-established. I see no point in getting an expensive lens that delivers great optical quality, and then trying to skimp by putting a cheap filter in front of it.


----------



## Menace (Oct 16, 2012)

You'll be happy and satisfied with the B+W filters - worth the investment for your new lenses IMHO.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

They are cheap. I don't know of anyone who has tested them for distortion, but I doubt if they cause any big issues. I've had a couple for several years, but don't use them, prefering B&W or Heliopan instead.
Canon certainly has plenty of glass expertise, the question is, do they use any of it in the filters or just rebrand tiffen?


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 17, 2012)

This test is probably the only scientific test of UV filters I've seen. In short, B+W filters are expensive but worth it, and steer clear of Tiffen. No Canon-branded ones in the test, but _if_ Canon is just re-badged Tiffen, well there's your answer...


----------



## infared (Oct 17, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> This test is probably the only scientific test of UV filters I've seen. In short, B+W filters are expensive but worth it, and steer clear of Tiffen. No Canon-branded ones in the test, but _if_ Canon is just re-badged Tiffen, well there's your answer...



I agree with most of what has been said. I use B&W MRC clear filters on all my 
L glass. This is my favourite article on high grade vs cheap filters. It's fun AND to the point:
<http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters>


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

The Canon filters I have are just plain glass, no UV. UV is not needed for digital. However, a non reflective coating is needed, and thats where flare reduction likely happens.
I avoid the use of filters unless I'm in a dust storm, and then, I usually don't bother to use my camera.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 17, 2012)

Sadly, Canon doesn't make filters to compliment and preserve the IQ of their lenses -- maybe because they don't make their own filters. I have a Canon UV filter and found it quite disappointing.

B+W has a great reputation, but I don't have any and can't comment.

I do have several Hoya's. Hoya HMC doesn't seem to work as well on digital as it did with film. Hoya Pro1 is good and doesn't appear to adversely affect the IQ. Hoya HD is their best filter for image quality, shatter resistance, and ease of cleaning. The Hoya HD is the only Hoya that I recommend and I do so highly.


----------



## TexasBadger (Oct 17, 2012)

I only use B+W MRC filters. They are superior to Canon and a filter is necessary to complete the weather sealing on L lenses. They are not cheap, but you want the best when you shoot through it all of the time. I also recommend a screw in metal lens cap. I always buy my filters from Adorama and at the same time order their Adorama brand lens cap. I do not recommend the B+W slim filter as it is not threaded for additional filters and requires a slip on lens cap which I guarantee you will lose toot suite.


----------



## Radiating (Oct 17, 2012)

wsmith96 said:


> I just purchased the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 lenses and I'm looking to get some protective filters for them. I've been reading quite a bit regarding lens filters as, at least for my budget, I have invested quite a bit of money in my new lenses. The recommendations always come back to pretty much B+W and Hoya. I have found very little in regards to the protective filters made by canon (or OEM'd - canon product support said they made them, but not sure if they consider OEMing "making" them), or rather, any filter made by Canon. Are there any online reviews I can see, or has someone done a comparison between canon and other brands? I like to research before I buy and I figure that a canon product would work best on a a canon product, but it concerns me that most people are purchasing other brands. What can I say, I over analyze but I'd rather buy right and buy once and not have shoppers remorse. Any guidance or information on Canon filters is appreciated.



B+W makes the best filters, lenstip tested almost all the filters on the market and proved this beyond a doubt. B+W uses some of the most advanced coatings in the world, better than Canon's own technology.

Canon's filters are outsourced garbage designed to cash in. Just get a B+W.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 17, 2012)

-1 for B&W

The first B&W filter I purchased got stuck to my 35mm f/1.4L and I had to pry it off...never again. I'm sticking to Hoya HD filters.


----------



## infared (Oct 17, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> -1 for B&W
> 
> The first B&W filter I purchased got stuck to my 35mm f/1.4L and I had to pry it off...never again. I'm sticking to Hoya HD filters.



Filters occasionally get stuck. A filter wrench is indispensable for that if it happens. Not over tightening the filter when installing goes a long way too. I use the solid brass B&W's and generally don't have a binding issue...but that can happen with any filter, regardless of brand.


----------



## japhoto (Oct 17, 2012)

A surprise to me is the popularity of using a protective filters in general.

I can see a need for one in very dusty (or sandy) places or when testing the weather sealing in pouring rain (don't actually get it why weather sealed Canon lenses need the filter for "completing" the seal in the first place though).

I might have a protective 77mm filter tucked away somewhere (came with an used lens), but I instantly screwed it off when I got it. Fingerprints on the lens, no problem cleaning them for me and I always use a lens hood when shooting.

Surely use them if you feel the need, but I've never got the point of adding a clear glass in front of my lenses other than in very specific situations.


----------



## PeterJ (Oct 17, 2012)

infared said:


> Filters occasionally get stuck. A filter wrench is indispensable for that if it happens. Not over tightening the filter when installing goes a long way too. I use the solid brass B&W's and generally don't have a binding issue...but that can happen with any filter, regardless of brand.


I had a filter stick for the first time a few months ago and looking around the house for what to use a cheap plastic jar opener did the job perfectly on a 77mm filter. Agree it can happen with any filter eventually, in this case was a lens I'd only had a UV on for years and only noticed when I went to fit an ND.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 17, 2012)

Thank you all for the feedback. Looks like there is a strong recommendation against using Canon filters so I'll steer clear of those in favor of B+W.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 31, 2012)

I did get my B+W 007 MRC protector and it works as advertised. Thanks again for the advice.


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

I use Hoya HD or HMC Super. No reason to bother with Canon...


----------



## Nick Gombinsky (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't use protective filters anymore as I'm very picky with optical quality. I used to have Hoya or Tiffen filters on all my lenses, now I just leave them "naked". I found in many situations that UV filters can cause flare and ghosting, and many times it just degrades IQ (the "digital zoom" function in Live View can be an eye opener for many things).

Anyways, the only brand on filters I trust is Schneider... and they are/own B+W.


----------



## TAF (Nov 1, 2012)

TexasBadger said:


> ...a filter is necessary to complete the weather sealing on L lenses.



I have seen this statement many times at multiple websites, but I have never been able to find any reference to this in Canon's literature.

I would love for someone to point it out in Canon's official documentation.

I just checked the instructions that come with the 24-105L (says filters sold separately), the 70-300L (also says filters sold separately), and the 70-200L 2.8 (says filters are optional). No where does it say they are needed for anything. I then checked my copy of the book "EF Lens Work III", and it isn't in there either.

Given how competitive the camera industry is, if you really had to use a filter to make the L lenses properly weather sealed, Nikon would have long ago sued Canon for false advertising, since Canon doesn't provide the filter, yet advertises the lenses as being weather sealed.

I suspect an urban myth.

Personally, unless I am trying to take pictures in severe conditions, I don't use "protective" filters. I had one shatter and destroy a lens once (where if the filter had not been there everything would have been fine), and won't make that mistake again.

Which is not to say I don't enjoy experimenting with polarizers, ND's, and graduated ND's...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2012)

TAF said:


> I suspect an urban myth.



You suspect wrong. Chuck Westfall has indicated that he recommends using a filter to complete the sealing of all sealed L-series that have front filter threads (i.e. not the supertele lenses). Hearsay, yes - but he's Canon's technical guru, so the source is a good one.

Beyond hearsay, there are a few lenses which Canon explicitly states require a filter to complete the weather sealing. Those are lenses with front element groups that move 'within the barrel' either for zoom extension or focusing. Check the instructions for the 50mm f/1.2L, 17-40mm f/4L, or 16-35mm f/2.8L II and you'll see the following statement:


----------



## TAF (Nov 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect an urban myth.
> ...




Excellent! Thank you neuro!

The fact that they put that warning in the instructions for those lenses, and not in others (obviously I need to buy more lenses), strongly suggests to me that the need is primarily applicable to those lenses. Your description of the why in those cases makes perfect sense.

It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 1, 2012)

TAF said:


> It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.



I've taken my 70-300L down the beach a few times, to shoot surfers and things, the wind is always blowing a gale down there. Am I going to point my $1500 lens straight into the wind and have the front element sandblasted? Hell no, I point my B&W MRC filter into the wind, it only cost $60 or so, it has no measurable difference on IQ (as i tested on my 7D), and it's Multicoated so no extra flare in *normal* situations (i don't feel like testing it by pointing at the sun).
As to whether it's *needed* for weathersealing? Don't know, don't care. It can't make the sealing *worse*, and since it doesn't make the images worse either, then to me it's a no-brainer.
As for impact damage? Some people will claim that Hoods are better. They may be, it all depends on too many variables of height, floortype, angle, etc. Why not just use both? (And why not just don't drop it?) Hoods help a bit with less flare too. And if i dropped it i'd be more concerned about the IS elements rattling around and the mount breaking off the camera body than the outer elements smashing...


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.
> ...


+ 100000000


----------



## TAF (Nov 4, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > It would be interesting to hear reasons for their use on other lenses, beyond an abundance of caution.
> ...



And when I am photographing jet engine tests, in high winds, or any other situation where I expect flying debris will hit the lens I use a protective filter as well.

But the question had become whether they were necessary to complete the weather sealing. Now I know that some of Canon's lens do require the additional piece be added (very disappointing of Nikon not to go to court; clearly they're off their game).

As for the filter that broke, I never said I dropped it. I didn't. I was walking through a doorway in NYC with the camera over my shoulder and got bumped into the door frame. The evilly  designed Canon lens cap 'ear' got shoved into the filter and it shattered. Had the filter not been there, the cap ear could not have made it to the front element. Hence the protective filter cost me a lens. Unless you live in the countryside, such is an unavoidable risk if you actually carry your camera.

Come to think of it, I have become a hood guy these days. Never really thought about it until now...

You really should try shooting directly into the sun some time. 8) The pictures that result can be quite beautiful. Although as you note, you might have to remove the filter to really get the best IQ out of the situation.


----------

