UV filter?

[Jonathan Wienke]

I wouldn't recommend a UV filter unless you're in an unusually muddy or dusty shooting situation where getting the front element plastered with stuff is unusually likely. Trackside at a motocross event would be one example, where mud/dirt would be thrown at you from the bike tires on a regular basis. Otherwise in most cases a lens hood offers equal or greater protection, and improves image quality rather than degrading it.

If you do us a filter, get a good one. Cheap filters can make a $2000 lens perform like a $200 lens, and have no business being on L glass.

Canon 1D-MkII:
$4000

Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L IS lens:
$1700

Generic 77mm filter that degades image quality to the point where the $700 Pro1 P&S takes better photos than the aforementioned camera+lens:
Priceless

[budjames]

I have several Canon "L" lenses: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 IS, and 100-400 IS. I have a B+W 77mm UV Multicoated filter "permanently" attached to each one. I also always use the appropriate Canon lens hood for each lens.

I have taken shots of the same subject, mostly landscapes, wth the camera on a tripod with and without the filters. I blow them up in Photoshop using a 21" LCD and I can't see any difference in sharpness. So in my own informal tests, I decided to leave the filters on all of the time.

I think that the key is purchasing the highest quality filters, like B+W, and not Hoya, Tiffen or others that are stamped from sheets of glass instead of precision ground.

My 2 cents.

Bud

[Ray]

The problem is, that use of a high grade filter will probably not produce any noticeable degradation of image in most circumstances. But in certain circumstances, particularly when shooting close to the sun, it probably will. One simply can't always be sure, and the nature of 'capturing the moment' is such that it's not practicable to make a decision before every shot is taken, 'Are these the circumstances that might exacerbate problems as a result of my protective filter?' 'Should I remove it or not?' Haven't you got enough to consider?

[davaglo]

I have purchased two "L" canon lenses. I have read somewhere, "why would you put a relatively cheap filter (lens) on an expensive lens"? Is this good advice or should I "protect" the lens with a UV filter?

Thanks for your reply.

Jerry

[TeddyLoves]

what i do is i always have filters in front of my lens (some is uv, some is warm/cold filters from the film age .. whatever). whenever i shoot, i take them off, and only leave them on when shooting in bad environment (ie dusty, muddy ..)

[jani]

I have taken shots of the same subject, mostly landscapes, wth the camera on a tripod with and without the filters. I blow them up in Photoshop using a 21" LCD and I can't see any difference in sharpness. So in my own informal tests, I decided to leave the filters on all of the time.

Have you checked for contrast degradation, which is one other issues one would expect to pop up?

[dwdallam]

Do a search on Google or other forums too. This always goes back and forth. Some peple swaer by having a protective filter on their lens at all times, and say there is no visible degradation. As for 1% of the shots taken at just the right angle at just the right time, and you get some degradation, what about that time where you forget to wrap your wrist strap and dump that 2K lens right on a  rock?  Give and take as always.