Filter or not to filter?
Discussion
Well, I finally learnt my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens has been ordered and will be arriving at my friends home in the US for collection when he's over in the next week or so.... 
(On learning this I was like a little kid at Christmas!!!)
I am however thinking of a filter and immediately thought of a Hoya Pro1 Circular polarised filter. It's an additional US$84 but I already have a good Canon Haze filter on my 17-40mm f/4L for protection and weather-proofing so it means I can use both on either lens as they're both 77mm.
Is it worth it should I not bother and buy an ultra-thin haze filter instead. Some people have told me that polarised filters can reduce the optical quality and avoid using filters altogether, but I'd rather not risk that with an $1800 lens, thank you!!!!
What's the PH consensus on filters?
(On learning this I was like a little kid at Christmas!!!)
I am however thinking of a filter and immediately thought of a Hoya Pro1 Circular polarised filter. It's an additional US$84 but I already have a good Canon Haze filter on my 17-40mm f/4L for protection and weather-proofing so it means I can use both on either lens as they're both 77mm.
Is it worth it should I not bother and buy an ultra-thin haze filter instead. Some people have told me that polarised filters can reduce the optical quality and avoid using filters altogether, but I'd rather not risk that with an $1800 lens, thank you!!!!
What's the PH consensus on filters?
A polarising filter isn't the sort of thing you'd want to keep on the lens all the time because it takes up about two stops of light. Use it for saturated blue skies and reducing reflections/glare on sunny days, and possibly as a minor neutral density filter, but that's all.
I used to keep UV filters on my lenses but don't any more.
I used to keep UV filters on my lenses but don't any more.
Simpo Two said:
A polarising filter isn't the sort of thing you'd want to keep on the lens all the time because it takes up about two stops of light. Use it for saturated blue skies and reducing reflections/glare on sunny days, and possibly as a minor neutral density filter, but that's all.
I used to keep UV filters on my lenses but don't any more.
Interesting to know about the reduction in light.I used to keep UV filters on my lenses but don't any more.
What would you recommend in order to protect the lens? I'm paranoid about getting dirt on it and putting a great sodding scratch on the lens.....
Firstly, congratulations on the lens. It's an absolute "cracker"!
Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
Ed_P said:
Firstly, congratulations on the lens. It's an absolute "cracker"!
Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
I would have agreed with you with the lens hood, but my 17-40 hood is so shallow yet because the lens is wide angle, you sometimes get shadows to the left or right with the hood on, depending on the light source.Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
beanbag said:
Ed_P said:
Firstly, congratulations on the lens. It's an absolute "cracker"!
Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
I would have agreed with you with the lens hood, but my 17-40 hood is so shallow yet because the lens is wide angle, you sometimes get shadows to the left or right with the hood on, depending on the light source.Personally, I don't use filters for purely "protective" reasons. It's common to see threads where people have been disappointed with the image quality of their lens, and it suddenly improving when they removed the filter! I do always use the lens hood though, even when taking shots indoors. Have fun ...
Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
beanbag said:
I would have agreed with you with the lens hood, but my 17-40 hood is so shallow yet because the lens is wide angle, you sometimes get shadows to the left or right with the hood on, depending on the light source.
Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
What hood are you using on the 17-40? If it's the standard Canon one it's inconcievable that it's causing a "shadow" unless you haven't fitted it correctly, especially as I presume you're not currently using a camera with a full-frame sensor. As for the 17-40 not being weather/dust proof without a filter on - what on earth kind of conditions are you working under? If you're getting that much water and/or dust on the lens I suggest you quit and go home! Or maybe buy an underwater housing? Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
horacethefrog said:
beanbag said:
I would have agreed with you with the lens hood, but my 17-40 hood is so shallow yet because the lens is wide angle, you sometimes get shadows to the left or right with the hood on, depending on the light source.
Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
What hood are you using on the 17-40? If it's the standard Canon one it's inconcievable that it's causing a "shadow" unless you haven't fitted it correctly, especially as I presume you're not currently using a camera with a full-frame sensor. As for the 17-40 not being weather/dust proof without a filter on - what on earth kind of conditions are you working under? If you're getting that much water and/or dust on the lens I suggest you quit and go home! Or maybe buy an underwater housing? Plus to make matters worse, the 17-40 isn't weather/dust-proof without a filter so in all reality, you need one all the time. I guess it's a little different with the 70-200....
Check out the third paragraph towards the end.
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."
I sometimes take photos when outdoors in while it's raining or snowing. While I try to protect my camera gear as best as I can, it still gets a few splashes on it.
If you want to take photos of expanses of water or even glass, in sunlight, then get one.
You can adjust the level of glare/highlights off the surface to exactly what you want for the shot and can take water shots towards the sun whereas without you'd just get a bright overexposed mess.
Don't keep it on your lens all the time though
You can adjust the level of glare/highlights off the surface to exactly what you want for the shot and can take water shots towards the sun whereas without you'd just get a bright overexposed mess.
Don't keep it on your lens all the time though
Edited by BMWBen on Wednesday 11th March 08:08
Edited by BMWBen on Wednesday 11th March 08:09
beanbag said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Check out the third paragraph towards the end.
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."
I sometimes take photos when outdoors in while it's raining or snowing. While I try to protect my camera gear as best as I can, it still gets a few splashes on it.
Mmmm, strikes me as paranoic. I'm not aware of any normal filter that is itself sealed against the elements so I don't see that it would do anything more than keep water/dust off the surface of the lens.Check out the third paragraph towards the end.
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."
I sometimes take photos when outdoors in while it's raining or snowing. While I try to protect my camera gear as best as I can, it still gets a few splashes on it.
Funnily enough that review states "Since 1.6x camera bodies do not need all of the image this lens presents, a more-light-reducing lens hood can be used. Friends of the site have reported that the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L Lens' EW-83DII lens hood and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS Lens' EW-83H work well as alternatives for these bodies." i.e. confirming that you definately should not be having a problem with the standard hood (assuming you have a body with a crop sensor)
horacethefrog said:
beanbag said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Check out the third paragraph towards the end.
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."
I sometimes take photos when outdoors in while it's raining or snowing. While I try to protect my camera gear as best as I can, it still gets a few splashes on it.
Mmmm, strikes me as paranoic. I'm not aware of any normal filter that is itself sealed against the elements so I don't see that it would do anything more than keep water/dust off the surface of the lens.Check out the third paragraph towards the end.
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is weather-sealed but requires a UV Filter to complete the sealing."
I sometimes take photos when outdoors in while it's raining or snowing. While I try to protect my camera gear as best as I can, it still gets a few splashes on it.
Funnily enough that review states "Since 1.6x camera bodies do not need all of the image this lens presents, a more-light-reducing lens hood can be used. Friends of the site have reported that the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L Lens' EW-83DII lens hood and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS Lens' EW-83H work well as alternatives for these bodies." i.e. confirming that you definately should not be having a problem with the standard hood (assuming you have a body with a crop sensor)
For example, I had the problem in a very low light exhibit in a museum once. I couldn't work out what the dark shroud in my photos was until I took the hood off and realised it was that causing the shadowing. I wish I'd kept an example to show but unfortunately I deleted those photos.
I've run out of ideas
Simpo Two said:
Interesting shots Beanbag - the varied lighting and shadows make them look theatrical.
How about posting the offending (shadowed) image for us to see?
ETA: The more I look at them, the more it looks like a film/satge set...
Cheers....Unfortunately I deleted the photos with the shadow, otherwise I'd post them right away. I'll check my archive this evening but I don't think they'll be there.How about posting the offending (shadowed) image for us to see?
ETA: The more I look at them, the more it looks like a film/satge set...
Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 11th March 13:57
The shots were taken in the Dubai Museum exhibit which in all honesty was quite interesting although a pig to take photographs!!
It was crammed full of people and without a tripod, it was very tough to take a sharp photo at ISO 1600 with a 0.5 second exposure with the aperture wide open (f/4).
I should hopefully get a tripod for my birthday.... (been hinting at the missus)...
So shots like this will be much easier....Here's a couple more of the same exhibit.....
Edited by beanbag on Wednesday 11th March 14:20
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff