# UV filter for 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II?



## IWLP (Apr 7, 2011)

Yes, I filter my lenses, and I'm looking for one for my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Do you guys have any recommendations or favorites when it comes to UV filters? I've been looking at the B+W F-Pro filter.

Thanks!


----------



## LuCoOc (Apr 7, 2011)

Hi!
i don't have a particular filter to recommend since i don't have an overview about all the filters availlable. however i'm using an hoya hd 67mm uv filter for my 100L and am satisfied with what i see 

my advises are:
1.) you've probably spend 2500$ on your lens wich is build out of 23 single lenses. that's more than 100$ each lens and about the budget i would spend on a filter if i wanted to use on on a 70-200mm.

2.) i don't own this lens but this german website (http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/canon_70_200_28_is_II/overview.php said at the end of their review filters (even slim filters) will cause vignetting with this lens.


----------



## MK5GTI (Apr 7, 2011)

yeah, i second the HD hoya line, either UV or just clear protector. they are really strong!


----------



## 87vr6 (Apr 7, 2011)

I have 4 lenses for my 5D2, the 24-105, 17-40, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. On all four there is either a Hoya UV or CPL filter. I know B&W are extremely good, but on the other hand, no one has ever told me my picture was ruined by my Hoya filter.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 7, 2011)

IWLP said:


> Yes, I filter my lenses, and I'm looking for one for my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Do you guys have any recommendations or favorites when it comes to UV filters? I've been looking at the B+W F-Pro filter.
> 
> Thanks!



If you are going to use a filter, buy a filter wrench at the same time. They are cheap, and help remove filters when they seem to be stuck. Also consider getting a large diameter filter and step down rings so that you can fit several lenses with one expensive filter.

The use of a UV filter is a subject that many users feel strongly about. The lower quality filters can definitely degrade your image as well as cause flare or other nasty issues, so, if you must have one, get a high quality one with a mrc coating. The mrc coating reduces reflections and is less prone to flare.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm

B&W is a excellent brand, Kenko (Hoya) are also good. I also have a Heliopan 77mm filter that is supurb, but in a higher price range. Brass rings are said to reduce binding of the threads, but get filter wrenches anyway.

Buy from B&H or other reputable dealer. Counterfits are said to be all over ebay.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 7, 2011)

Buy a good one, I 've tried 4 different types which works fine with my other lenses, but on the 70-200 II it seems to need something proper. I had "no" af with a cheapcheap filter, and adjusted MA to +14 to get anything remotely good. I had NO ideo a filter could do such a crazy difference, since everyone says, scratch your lens, it will never show up in real life shots anyway. Well, not with this new lens. It's just to good to use a low-end filter on it. I bought a 30 dollar filter from Kenko (Pro) and it works very well, MA is back to +2 now, and much sharper than before.

Guess which one is the cheap one:

http://photobyviggo.com/Random/UV.jpg


----------



## IWLP (Apr 7, 2011)

Viggo said:


> Buy a good one, I 've tried 4 different types which works fine with my other lenses, but on the 70-200 II it seems to need something proper. I had "no" af with a cheapcheap filter, and adjusted MA to +14 to get anything remotely good. I had NO ideo a filter could do such a crazy difference, since everyone says, scratch your lens, it will never show up in real life shots anyway. Well, not with this new lens. It's just to good to use a low-end filter on it. I bought a 30 dollar filter from Kenko (Pro) and it works very well, MA is back to +2 now, and much sharper than before.



Well, I just sent back a $50 filter in hopes of buying one around $80 ... 

Is there any good reason to buy the Hoya HD series over the S-HMC?


----------



## Grendel (Apr 7, 2011)

I use B+W 010M (UV haze MRC) on most of my lenses. Beware of uncoated filters, they flare easily. An alternative would be 007M (Clear MRC).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2011)

Like Grendel, I use B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses. On my 70-200 II, the standard F-Pro mount is fine, and causes no vignetting (the lens itself has some optical vignetting at f/2.8 especially a the short end of the zoom, but the UV filte does not add any physical vignetting).


----------



## fotox.tv (Apr 7, 2011)

Please allow me to make two humble remarks:

1. I have not found a filter which does not add additional flare to my lenses - be it cheap kit lenses or be it Canon L lenses. For this reason I do not use filters unless needed (i.e. polarising filter).

2. The purpose of the filter is to protect the front lens against damage. I do not know how much the front lens of an L objective costs (I only heard that most would cost less then 100 Euro), but consider (the price of a front lens repair minus costs for protecting filter) against additional flare. For me a saving potential of some 10 Euros (or 14 USD) does not outweigh making my pictures worse on a system which costs 4.000 Euro.

But you decide for yourselves.

May be someone has an idea how much a front lens repair costs?

I wish everyone always good light!


----------



## distant.star (Apr 7, 2011)

Everything and anything you want to know about filters is right here:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters

The great Roger Cicala to the rescue. Here's the first thing he says to anyone who advocates a particular filter:

â€œAre those glass or resin? Are they coated glass or a filter sandwich? Multi-coated, double coated or single coated? What kind of glass do they use in those, do you know what its refractive index is? Whatâ€™s the tolerance of the glass thickness and smoothness? How about the transmission index and reflectivity? What about the tolerances of the mounting ring? How close to square is it?â€

That's just a sample from the beginning of this article. I suggest reading what he has to say before any filter purchase.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 7, 2011)

I use:
B+W 77mm 010 UV-Haze MRC XS-Pro Digital

And:
Promaster Digital HGX
as backup


----------



## motorhead (Apr 7, 2011)

I would second fotox.tv,

While I do use Neutral grads and a polarising filter when the occasion demands, I would never leave a filter attached because of the possibility of flare. Why chance it? Having paid a vast sum for a lens with better optics, reducing the resolution with a screw on filter seems daft to me. The lens hood on the mark 2 is a very sturdy one and as I use it all the time, that is my protection.


----------



## LuCoOc (Apr 7, 2011)

fotox.tv said:


> Please allow me to make two humble remarks:
> 
> 1. I have not found a filter which does not add additional flare to my lenses - be it cheap kit lenses or be it Canon L lenses. For this reason I do not use filters unless needed (i.e. polarising filter).
> 
> ...



My two reasons for using protection filters are:

1.) completed weather sealing if used with 1d bodys
2.)reparing the front element of your lens might only cost you 10-20 bucks more than the filter but for sure 2-3 weeks to get it repaired unless you're cps-member i guess


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

A front filter is not always necessary to complete the weather sealing. It depends on the design on the lens front element and if it is fixed. For example:

14mm f/2.8 II - no filter needed
50mm f/1.2 - filter needed

Also, in their manuals, the 14mm doesn't state that it needs one (not that it could take one with a fixed lens hood and curved glass). That is the only reason I will be puting filters on the front - for weather sealing.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 8, 2011)

The 14 is the only non-super telephoto that doesn't need a filter to be weathersealed. 

Weathersealing is also my only reason for adding filters. If you can't see the difference, do you really care about it's refractive index??

I choose good filters and see what they're like, if I can tell they're giving me the same (or as close as possible to) IQ as without filter, then I sell them and buy a more expensive one, but I don't get a 150 dollar filter (and yes they cost that here in Norway) just because it's expensive, if I can't see the difference between a 30 dollar and 120 dollar filter, I don't buy the 120 dollar one, isn't that pretty obvious?


----------



## 87vr6 (Apr 8, 2011)

Viggo said:


> I choose good filters and see what they're like, if I can tell they're giving me the same (or as close as possible to) IQ as without filter, then I sell them and buy a more expensive one, but I don't get a 150 dollar filter (and yes they cost that here in Norway) just because it's expensive, if I can't see the difference between a 30 dollar and 120 dollar filter, I don't buy the 120 dollar one, isn't that pretty obvious?




Finally, someone with some common sense. Everyone reads into "technical" details too much. The only difference I can see in my picture that are with or without filters are when I'm using a polarizer. Then again, I'm willing to pay for a decent/good filter (hoya as I stated earlier). Don't shoot into blinding lights and you won't have flares, unless that's what you're going for...


----------



## AKCalixto (Apr 8, 2011)

I have the "B+W 77mm UV Haze 010 F-Pro Filter" on my 70-200 IS II and I am happy with it.

The filter code is BWUVMC77


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

fotox.tv said:


> 1. I have not found a filter which does not add additional flare to my lenses - be it cheap kit lenses or be it Canon L lenses. For this reason I do not use filters unless needed (i.e. polarising filter).



I have B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses. As some have stated, a filter is required to complete the weather sealing on most L-lenses. Besides the debateable 'protection' argument, the B+W MRC filters are more smudge resistant and easier to clean than the front element of most lenses (Canon has started applying a fluorine coating to the front and rear elements of their newest L lenses, to make them more smudge resistant and easier to clean). 

I don't think that a high quality filter adds significant additional flare to a lens. Since I am reluctant to make a claim like that without empirical evidence, below are some comparison shots (click for larger images). I used a 5DII and two different lenses (a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm, since that's the subject of this thread, and a 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm), each shot wide open and at f/11 without and with a B+W MRC UV filter. The appropraite lens hood was used. Light source was a halogen lamp (150W equivalent) in the upper left corner of the frame, in an otherwise completely dark room (literally, a darkroom). This is something of a worst-case scenario - a small, very bright light source, a black background, and no extraneous features in the image to mask the flare.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 200mm:





24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm:


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 8, 2011)

Wow, pretty flares! Thanks for checking.


----------

