UV filter with zoom

[quackal]

Do most of you who shoot with a telephoto zoom, shoot with a UV filter on?

I just bought a Canon 100-400mm telephoto zoom and it was recommended that I get the 77mm UV filter to help protect the lens (I thought the hood would do the job).....but was told Canon recommends it as well; did I just pay for an extra filter that I really didn't need?

Just curious, because I know sometimes you can get flare, so I'm curious how most of you shoot.

thanks!

 

[Overread]

Canon do not offically consider a lens weathersealed unless a filter is indeed in place upon the front of the lens. For their weathersealed line of lenses they thus do have the policy of infroming that for "full protection" you need a filter.

However most times you should be perfectly fine with just the hood attached - mostly I tend to view the need for a protection filter as being environment limited. If you are shooting in seaspray, strong dust, muddy conditions - anywhere where you are likley to need to wipe the lens clean more htan once to keep shooting and where there is a good chance of such elements getting onto the lens then yes I would use a filter indeed. It would be far less expensive to have that scratched from quick wipes than the front of the lens.

However in order to preserve the best image quality I also belive that one should always get the best quaity filter one can afford to get - otherwise why spend so much on good quality optical glass and then delibratly put lower grade glass infront

 

[icassell]

The 100-400 isn't a weather-sealed lens, is it?

 

[Overread]

hmm I always thought it was - but after a quick search it turns out that its not a weathersealed lens.

 

[quackal]

I guess if it does not say it's weathersealed, I should assume it's not, correct?....in which case it would require a filter?

 

[Overread]

Nope and to be honest even if it is weathersealed you can still operate without a filter - often sales people will push filter sales as they make more of a profit markup on them than they do the lens itself.
Like I said I view filter protection as a thing that is good to have for certain situations, but which in every day shooting is generally not a concern for most people. Some others consider that filters should always be used however. It's a topic that rather divides photographres.

 

[Sam6644]

A Canon 77mm UV filter is only $34 from B&H. There is no excuse not to have one on any lens you actually care about.

 

[Overread]

As I said above - no point spending $1,639.00 odd on a lens (amazon 100-400mm lens price) and then sticking a lowgrade (cheap) filter infront of it. I would be looking at the B&W filters listed on B&H and be looking at ones at least three times that cost* as a starting point (and knowing me I would want to push maybe a little higher possibly).

It's all about ensuring that you are not hindering yourself with every shot by using the lowergrade optics infront of it. And if the filter will always be on then its worth investing well in it


* note there are some highquality optical filters that are not a fortune, but I have no knowledge of specific brand ID's, retailers or names to give. It's not all about the cost, its about the quality - but the two often go together

 

[table1349]

For normal shooting the hood should do just fine protecting the lens. Get a UV and keep it handy for inclement weather or harsh shooting conditions. Personally I only use a filter when the shot calls for one or when they conditions, blowing rain, sand etc. threaten the lens.

 

[Garbz]

Agree on the expensive filter. Look on ebay. You'll find good deals on nice B+W filters and Hoya Pro1 filters.

I'll take the opposite stance to gryphonslair. Mount the UV filter and keep the case handy for shooting conditions where performance may be impacted (shooting into lights which cause flare). Personally I only remove a filter when the shot calls for it, otherwise it stays on.

I typically only remove it these days when taking night photos of a city or getting very creative with lighting. A decent filter I have noticed no visible performance impact.

 

[Vinny]

I'm new to the "lens hood" lens and have always used a UV filter on my film camera lens (yes you do need it for film) but it was always there for protection. I find my lens hood in the "off" position (reversed but attached to the lens) is constanly getting undone, haven't used it too much in the "on" position but the one time I used it it did screen the sun from my lens and it worked perfectly.

I would also agree to not buy a $15 filter for a $1600 lens but I wouldn't buy a $135 filter for a $350 lens. Both my digital lenses now do not have filters on them since I have to scrape up enough money to buy them (looking at B&W or Hoya Pro) but I am concerned that something will happen to the lens. I do not know if I would buy anything from ebay as there are too many ways to knock off any product ( just my opinion and I am skeptical) ... although I am looking at Nikon remotes there for a whopping $3.95 with free shipping!

 

[KmH]

A Canon 77mm UV filter is only $34 from B&H. There is no excuse not to have one on any lens you actually care about.

:lmao:

 

[quackal]

Thanks for the replies; I know B&W, Hoya & Tiffen....the filter I was sold was Crystal Optics (retail $60 for a 77 mm UV), however I've never heard of them; any experience with this company?