# EF 16-35 f4L IS Owners - Did you buy slim filter UV/Protector for it?



## Triggyman (Dec 6, 2014)

Hi Everyone:

I am 99% certain to add my final lens for the foreseeable future by tomorrow - the 16-35 f4L.

For the fine folks here who already own that lens, have you purchased a UV or Protector filter (slim) to complete the front seal as recommended by Canon?

If yes, did you get the either UV or Protector (clear) filter? Which one is better? The slim B+W isn't really that cheap.

If no, what's the reason?

Thanks. G.A.S. isn't cured with the 24-70II from 3 weeks ago...I say "sc**w saving money this Christmas, I want it..." :'(


----------



## e17paul (Dec 6, 2014)

Final lens? I've believed that before..


----------



## muchakucha (Dec 6, 2014)

I got B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for mine and it works great


----------



## NorbR (Dec 6, 2014)

I have a Hoya HD Protector for my 77mm lenses, works just fine, I haven't seen any major problem with it yet, and it's easy to clean. I like Hoya HD Series, good quality at good prices imho.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 6, 2014)

muchakucha said:


> I got B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for mine and it works great




+1.....I have the same on all my lenses including the 16-35 f4 and they work great. You'll love the lens it's awesome.


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2014)

muchakucha said:


> I got B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for mine and it works great



Same +1


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2014)

Yes, I got a slim HOYA HD UV filter


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 6, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Final lens? I've believed that before..



LOL You know what I remember coughing a bit when I previewed my post.


----------



## infared (Dec 6, 2014)

muchakucha said:


> I got B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for mine and it works great



+100


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 6, 2014)

Finally brought my new baby 16-35 f/4 home and bought a Hoya HD slim UV filter with it as the BW mentioned in this thread was out of stock at my favorite store. 

I believe shelling out an extra hundred bucks (Canadian) for a filter is good cheap insurance along with the hood, knowing that it would at least protect the front element from knocks against pointy corners, and prevent dust and water to enter the lens through the front, etc. 

Thanks for the replies in this thread.

Now for some extreme angle shooting ;D


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 6, 2014)

I don't have the 16-35 F4 (saving for one!) but I do have a number of Canon lenses ranging from the 17-40 to the 800 F5.6 L IS.
In answer to your question about did I buy UV/Protector filters, yes I did! What a complete waste of money! I learned a lesson there but it cost me! Mine are gathering dust.
If you want mine you can have them for the price of postage, but being an honest person, I would have to state that the only thing you will be getting is poorer IQ by putting more crap between you and the subject.
As far as I can gather the 16-35 is an excellent lens, as I said it is on my will but soon list, so why would you want to spoil it?


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> I don't have the 16-35 F4 (saving for one!) but I do have a number of Canon lenses ranging from the 17-40 to the 800 F5.6 L IS.
> In answer to your question about did I buy UV/Protector filters, yes I did! What a complete waste of money! I learned a lesson there but it cost me! Mine are gathering dust.
> If you want mine you can have them for the price of postage, but being an honest person, I would have to state that the only thing you will be getting is poorer IQ by putting more crap between you and the subject.
> As far as I can gather the 16-35 is an excellent lens, as I said it is on my will but soon list, so why would you want to spoil it?




I disagree with you about protective filters. If you buy cheap filters and put them on expensive glass it's goint to hurt image quality. If you stack filters it can hurt image quality. But with quality filters (there not cheap) I've never had a image quality problem. If you don't want to use protective filters there's nothing wrong with that. I've always used clear filters for protection. With digital you really don't need the uv. If you want to weather seal the front element you need a filter. Say for shooting a water fall or ocean where you have water spray it's important to me.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2014)

Go ahead, shoot Macro (real Macro) without a protective filter in the field, Your front element(and your bank account) will hate you for it.

POKE!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

slclick said:


> Go ahead, shoot Macro (real Macro) without a protective filter in the field, Your front element(and your bank account) will hate you for it.
> 
> POKE!



Lol +1


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 7, 2014)

Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.

The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...

I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.

I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 7, 2014)

muchakucha said:


> I got B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for mine and it works great


+1, I bought the same and front lens cap fits well and stay on. Others I have used the front cap keeps falling off.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 7, 2014)

Triggyman said:


> Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.
> 
> The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...
> 
> ...



Which lenses? I have never had dust ingress into my 17-40 or 24-105. I have had them quite a while (also the 17-40 was far from new when I bought it back in 2005) - zero issues with waterfalls and shooting in coastal spray.
If others wish to spend (waste) their money on these things then that's fine - it keeps people in work! Don't be fooled into thinking these filters will improve your photography or the life of your lenses - they won't.
I posted merely to try and help others not to waste money, degrade IQ and increase flare. I did not want others to fall into the same trap as I did, but if you insist that they help then go with it, I did for a while but they don't - I learned...............


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Triggyman said:
> 
> 
> > Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.
> ...


personally, filter use for me depends on the lens. For instance, I would never use it on my 35 1.4 for any chance of image degradation. However, I will always use filters on my macro lenses because they are used outdoors and regularly have plants, bugs and other objects striking them. Why you would risk the front element is beyond me. So the list goes on for my other glass, it depends on if they are being used at risk or not. 

Being completely against filter use is a shooters prerogative but with quality optics like B+H and certain Hoya available to us to use when the situation calls for it, my take it to use common sense. Theres been a lot of name calling and childish behavior around here in the past when these threads come up so I hope we can rise above that sort of thing in this topic.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 8, 2014)

Interesting article from lens rentals where they disassemble a 16-35 f/4
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart

Near the end, they show that it actually has a rubber gasket around the moving front element. Of course this won't be a perfect seal, and if you're planning on using the lens in conditions with a lot of dust/rain/spray then it's probably wise to add a filter for extra sealing. However if you don't plan on using it in these conditions, then a filter probably isn't worthwhile.

In my experience, the problem that exists even with high-quality filters is that they triple the number of glass surfaces that acquire dirt,smudges, etc and must be cleaned fastidiously, especially when shooting toward light sources. That and it just makes swapping in a polariser or ND a bigger pain. Hence why I have stopped using them entirely.


----------



## Vivid Color (Dec 8, 2014)

Dear Coldhands, would you please explain what you mean by adding a filter causes the number of surfaces that you have to clean to triple? Am I missing a nuance here or is this an exaggeration? Thanks – Vivid


----------



## Vivid Color (Dec 8, 2014)

Dear Johnf3f, please provide us with the filter brand and model of the filters that you're talking about that degraded the images of your photos so that we can better understand your experience. I personally use B+ W filters with nano coatings and have found no image degradement to take place. Or if there is one, I certainly can't see it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about using or not using filters, but when you make sweeping statements about filters degrading images, then please provide us with additional specific information so that we can at least avoid those specific filters. And I will confess to a bias for using filters. Years ago, I fell down some brick stairs outside and landed on my SLR camera. The filter was a cracked mess but the lens was undamaged.


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 8, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> Dear Coldhands, would you please explain what you mean by adding a filter causes the number of surfaces that you have to clean to triple? Am I missing a nuance here or is this an exaggeration? Thanks – Vivid



Sure.

With no filter, you have one surface that gets exposed to the elements - the front glass.
With a filter you now have the front glass, the inner surface of the filter, and the outer surface. Three surfaces. 

Obviously that doesn't apply if you _never_ remove the UV filter, but I find that's very rarely the case. In the days before I quit UV filters, I spent a lot of time trying to clean the front of the filter, only to realise that dirt was on the other side. Too much aggravation


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2014)

Triggyman said:


> Oops, I unintentionally started another filter vs. no filter debate LOL.



You should have stated at the outset that you didn't want this to turn into a filter vs. no filter debate – that would certainly have prevented it from happening. 




Triggyman said:


> The manual for the lens states (verbatim) "to ensure dust and water resistant performance, attach a Canon PROTECT filter (77mm)"...
> 
> I take it's either a shameless plug from Canon to sell their own filters, or they advise a filter will be needed to complete dust/water sealing.
> 
> I confess I am a purist ("no additional glass element on a thousand dollar lens for the sake of IQ"). But at this time I personally heed Canon's statement - I don't want dust or water to seep in the front element.



The 'Canon PROTECT' part is a shameless plug, the need for a filter to complete the sealing is not, and that statement is only present in the manuals for a few lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 8, 2014)

Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 8, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> Dear Johnf3f, please provide us with the filter brand and model of the filters that you're talking about that degraded the images of your photos so that we can better understand your experience. I personally use B+ W filters with nano coatings and have found no image degradement to take place. Or if there is one, I certainly can't see it. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion about using or not using filters, but when you make sweeping statements about filters degrading images, then please provide us with additional specific information so that we can at least avoid those specific filters. And I will confess to a bias for using filters. Years ago, I fell down some brick stairs outside and landed on my SLR camera. The filter was a cracked mess but the lens was undamaged.



I re-read my post and I think I could have phrased it a bit better! I stand by what I said but it does come across as a bit of a sweeping statement - not my intention.
Firstly I am not anti filers, I wave recently completed my 100mm filter kit at some considerable expense! They have their place in my kit but are only used when necessary, and (as I understand it) UV and Skylight filters are not needed on DSLRs.
The main brand that I used was Hoya as it was pretty much all that was available locally, though I did have a couple of Kood filters. If memory serves the Hoya filters were in the Pro1 and standard ranges. I still use Cpl filters (when needed) from Hoya.
Putting anything in front of your lens is bound to affect image quality, though how noticeable this is depends on the quality of filter and the sort of image being taken also whether the photographer is concerned about it or not! One thing that is unavoidable is increased susceptibility to flare - this simply unavoidable with a flat piece of glass and can significantly limit you shooting options. 
I appreciate concerns about damage protection, but having seen the damage that the filter can cause to a lens dropped onto a relatively soft surface (not one of mine thank goodness) it can work both ways.
It is interesting that when Canon introduced their Mk2 SuperTele lenses they omitted the front filter element


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 8, 2014)

I don't own the 16-35/4, but I use B+W XS-Pro Clear Nano MRC filters as protective filters at the recommendation of other forum members.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 8, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro



+1, especially if you intend to get more lenses. I started with a couple regular thickness filters, and later found out that they vignetted when used on ultrawides. If you have all xs-pros, then you can swap filters and not worry which filter can't be used on which lens.


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You should have stated at the outset that you didn't want this to turn into a filter vs. no filter debate – that would certainly have prevented it from happening.
> 
> 
> The 'Canon PROTECT' part is a shameless plug, the need for a filter to complete the sealing is not, and that statement is only present in the manuals for a few lenses.



Thanks Neuro - that supports my understanding of the statement from Canon. If they say so for their product, then I won't mind the expense. As for flare, I can just remove the filter when taking pictures with strong sources of light within the frame (i.e. lamp posts in long exposures, the sun, etc.) 8)


----------



## Triggyman (Dec 9, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Interesting article from lens rentals where they disassemble a 16-35 f/4
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart
> 
> Near the end, they show that it actually has a rubber gasket around the moving front element. Of course this won't be a perfect seal, and if you're planning on using the lens in conditions with a lot of dust/rain/spray then it's probably wise to add a filter for extra sealing. However if you don't plan on using it in these conditions, then a filter probably isn't worthwhile.
> ...



Thanks for the link - I can see there isn't much dust to go in the lens element(s) chamber through the front, but water might (as far as I can see through the pictures). During a dry and normal day I guess a filter isn't necessary - but some dusty environments (i.e., road/ground dust) and active weather (i.e. snow/rainshowers) I will definitely put one on.


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 9, 2014)

I have b+w f-pro mrc which is not the slim version. It works fine without vignetting. 

I got a lot of flare with a hoya filter on 17-40 which I previously owned. Then I got b+w for my 16-35. No difference. Flare!! Then I learned to take the filter off when shooting straight into the sun. Problem solved. I just have to remember to put the filter back on afterwards. As for the slim version, I don't see the point.


----------

