# New lens: need filter advice



## gwertheim (Dec 11, 2011)

Hello All,

I recently picked up the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens (I couldn't afford the L  ) and I want to protect the glass. Can anyone recommend a good quality clear screw in fliter so i won't scratch the glass on the lens


----------



## MazV-L (Dec 11, 2011)

Hoya HD!


----------



## michael6liu (Dec 11, 2011)

I use Hoya s-hmc for non-L and B+W mrc for L glasses.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 11, 2011)

michael6liu said:


> I use Hoya s-hmc for non-L and B+W mrc for L glasses.


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

I use B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses; the newer B+W Nano would also be good. The Hoya HD is equivalent, apparently the Hoya H-SMC is a bit harder to clean.


----------



## LuCoOc (Dec 11, 2011)

I use Hoya HD

check theese threads for more information:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,823.msg10615.html

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2298.msg49265.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2011)

I have B&W and Helicon, but seldom use them. If I were to go out in a dust storm or where mud or dirt was a likely possibility, I'd put one on.

I really should sell some of them, I have a ton of filters that I bought when I first started and before I realized that I liked the sharpness better without them. I keep them because I might need them, but I have too many duplicates. Many have come from used film cameras and lenses. If they are Hoya or B&W I hang on to them. I even have a 3 pc set of 77mm Nikon branded filters that came with a used Canon 17-40mm lens!


----------



## gwertheim (Dec 12, 2011)

I usually just shoot inside but i think i'll go with the hoya linked below

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraFilters/246065/hoya-58mm-protectors-hd.aspx


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 16, 2011)

I would save my money. Filters don't protect the lens from falls; only splashes and dust / particles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Filters don't protect the lens from falls; only splashes and dust / particles.



The OP didn't ask about falls, but rather about scratches. Granted, a hood should be the first line of defense, but on wide lenses the hood doesn't offer much protection, and even with the deep round hood of the 100-400, I've had branches poke inside the hood while hiking.


----------



## bornshooter (Dec 18, 2011)

i agree with using filters to protect your glass but i had a paid family shoot today inside a nice warm house i knew there was little chance of anything bad happening so i removed the filter for the best possible quality but outdoors keep it on is what i do


----------



## pwp (Dec 18, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I would save my money. Filters don't protect the lens from falls; only splashes and dust / particles.



It depends where you go to shoot. You'll find that the overwhelming majority of professional photographers leave a UV filter (or similar) on every lens they own. Something they don't mind wiping down with their shirt. Something that can be quickly replaced for under $100. Something that experience has shown them to be a very smart default position. 

Run a series of tests with a clean, unscratched good quality UV filter. Filter on/filter off. You'll be very hard pressed to see any difference in your files. Wear your protection!

Filters have saved lenses from damage on multiple occasions for me. A bump against the filter thread on a lens without a hood can damage the thread more easily than you might imagine. I've bent and trashed filters then been able to unscrew them and been relieved to find the filter thread undamaged. The filter rim took the hit. For this reason I only use the slim filters on my ultra-wides. (vignetting)

Front filters are not always practical or possible such as on the 300mm f/2.8is. However, Canon knows that photographers will need to wipe these down. The front glass on the 300 is in fact relatively inexpensive plain glass, replacable by Canon for a price, but a very small percentage of the cost of a new front element.

Paul Wright


----------



## m3tek44 (Dec 18, 2011)

Sorry to piggy back on your questions but I purchased this week 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS w/ B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating but I noticed I have option to add one additional filter such as UV filter. My question is can I use B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating or do I need purchase another B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating and both? Thanks for your input!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2011)

m3tek44 said:


> Sorry to piggy back on your questions but I purchased this week 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS w/ B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating but I noticed I have option to add one additional filter such as UV filter. My question is can I use B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating or do I need purchase another B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating and both? Thanks for your input!



Good choice on lens and circular polarizer (CPL)!

You can and should use the CPL by itself. When it's on the lens it will protect it (which is the reason to use a UV/clear filter), but you shouldn't leave the CPL on all the time, because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light. 

For a protection filter, dSLRs are basically insensitive to UV wavelengths (unlike film), so there's no difference between UV and clear - get whichever is cheapest. 

Hope that helps...


----------



## branden (Dec 18, 2011)

Almost all my filters are B+W, but the past few Tiffen filter's I've picked up have been very impressive. I keep my UV filters off unless I'm doing something in inclement conditions.


----------



## pwp (Dec 19, 2011)

m3tek44 said:


> Sorry to piggy back on your questions but I purchased this week 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS w/ B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating but I noticed I have option to add one additional filter such as UV filter. My question is can I use B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating or do I need purchase another B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating and both? Thanks for your input!



You're unlikely to leave the CPL on the lens except for those occasions when you do need it. Leave it in the bag. What you do need to leave permanently on your lens is a UV or clear filter. Never stack filters. Take the UV/clear off when you need the CPL.

Paul Wright


----------



## JR (Dec 19, 2011)

I use B+W Clear MRC 007 or UV Haze (which ever one is cheaper when I buy them) for all my lens. I also have B+W circular polarizing filter which I simply stack on the other firlter when I need them.


----------



## m3tek44 (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> m3tek44 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to piggy back on your questions but I purchased this week 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS w/ B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating but I noticed I have option to add one additional filter such as UV filter. My question is can I use B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating or do I need purchase another B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating and both? Thanks for your input!
> ...





neuroanatomist.... Thank you for your input!! I have Big fan of Canonrumors and I've seen MANY of your comments in forums which is VERY knowledgeable.  One of reason why I purchased 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS was your feedback from different forums so thank you!!! I am LOVING this lens.

I am still amateur to photography and I can use some of your inputs. Can you explain what you mean by "because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light." Thank you!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

m3tek44 said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light." Thank you!!!



Glad to help! Just hold the CPL up to the light - it's dark like sunglasses, meaning it's blocking some of the light. One stop of light is a halving or doubling of the intensity. That's the scale used in photography - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are all adjusted in stops (sometimes 1/3 or 1/2 stops). 

So, if you use the CPL when light isn't bright, you might be needlessly using too slow a shutter speed or too high an ISO.


----------



## m3tek44 (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> m3tek44 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you explain what you mean by "because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light." Thank you!!!
> ...



Got it!!! Thank you!! I'm sure I will have more questions in the future,,, For now I'll play with my new toy. ;D


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For a protection filter, dSLRs are basically insensitive to UV wavelengths (unlike film), so there's no difference between UV and clear - get whichever is cheapest.
> 
> Hope that helps...



Agree on the fact that dSLRs are insensitive to UV... getting a "UV" filter is more for protecting the front element than anything else now.

On the "cheapest" though... Using ANY filter will degrade IQ, but on better, higher quality filters there is less degradation. If you were to say using the cheaper choice between two similar filters, the only difference being one is just a normal "clear" filter, and the other a "UV" filter, yes, by all means go for the cheaper option, but if one is cheaper because of lower quality/less coatings... you're gonna be sacrificing IQ there. 

Of course, taking the filter off when the situation allows it will be good too. 

Oh, also, most L lenses "require" a filter to be screwed in to "complete the weather sealing", so something interesting to note while you're outdoors.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 10, 2012)

Only issues with "Stacking" filters is it can cause vignetting. 

I also heard the the B+W CPL MRC can introduce a bit of this as well and have been debating going to the slim for my CPL instead to negate this


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Oh, also, most L lenses "require" a filter to be screwed in to "complete the weather sealing", so something interesting to note while you're outdoors.



That's actually debatable for 'most' L lenses. A filter is definitely required to complete the sealing of a few lenses - 3 current lenses, to be exact. Lenses with exposed internally moving focus or zoom elements have that requirement listed in the manuals - 16-35L II, 17-40L, and 50L. A filter is definitely not required for the super telephoto lenses, since they do not take front filters, but they are weather sealed lenses. For all of the other L series lenses, there's no 'official' statement that a filter is required to complete the sealing. However, in an email exchange with Chuck Westfall he recommended using a filter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Only issues with "Stacking" filters is it can cause vignetting.
> 
> I also heard the the B+W CPL MRC can introduce a bit of this as well and have been debating going to the slim for my CPL instead to negate this



Actually, that depends on the lens being used. Some time back, I tested several lenses for the effect of stacking filters on vignetting. Surprisingly, many lenses can tolerate a pretty thick stack of filters. For example, the 35L at f/1.4 shows no mechanical vignetting even with 3 F-Pro filters stacked on it. On the other hand, the 16-35L II will vignette with an XS-Pro plus F-Pro, meaning a standard CPL will vignette, as will an XS-Pro with a slim CPL stacked, but the slim CPL alone will not.

Here are the lenses that I tested, and the results:


EF 35mm f/1.4L
EF 85mm f/1.2L II
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS


----------



## sheedoe (Jan 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Only issues with "Stacking" filters is it can cause vignetting.
> ...



Thanks for the comparison results. I recently ordered a B+W xs-pro UV filter for my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II lens, but was a little concerned about whether or not it would cause any vignetting. Glad to learn that it wont .


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 10, 2012)

The filter/no-filter/sometimes a filter debate has raged for decades, and you must come to your own conclusion. Here is a great article: http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

That said, a proper lens hood is a great idea with or without a filter, providing some protection in a fall, keeping stray light out, and improving the photo quality. Not many negatives aside from making polarizing filters harder to turn, and the lenses bigger in the bag.


----------

