Filters on lenses with recessed glass?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/10/2005 06:11:28 AM · #1

I have never done so, but am wondering if others use/would suggest using a UV filter as protection on lenses that have the glass recessed into the lens. For example: the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro both have the glass backed into the lens casing (as opposed to the 18-55mm kit lens, or 75-300mm). These seem less suspectible to damage/foreign objects.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

07/10/2005 06:13:17 AM · #2

I use a lens hood on all of my lenses and a UV filter on none. I've not had any problems (so far) because I try and take care of my equipment.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/10/2005 09:27:44 AM · #3

I have a UV filter on my lens and always put the lens hood on. Recessed or not, dust is going to get on your lens surface. While it's easy to clean properly, I don't like the idea of wiping off (even properly) a $800 or more lens every time I'm out shooting. Now, a $20 UV filter, I'll wipe it all day long if I want to and won't think twice about it.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/10/2005 09:37:26 AM · #4

Originally posted by deapee:

The issue is what the el-cheapo ($20 UV = el-cheapo) UV filter is doing to the quality of the output from your $800 lens. Like flare, loss of contrast, etc.
I too recommend using a *good quality* UV filter, but only in environments that are very smoky, dusty, or have other airborne particles that might be detminental to the optics or present a problem with cleaning.

Uusilehto

Canon EOS-1D

Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.4 Jena/Flektogon MC

07/10/2005 09:39:30 AM · #5

Originally posted by deapee:

Seconded. I have a UV filter on my lenses all the time. It's much cheaper to replace a $20 filter, than a $500 lens

EDIT: I put the camera on a tripod in many spots, took a shot with and without the filter and inspected them on the computer. The filter didn't seem to degrade the image at all.

Message edited by author 2005-07-10 09:41:45.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

07/10/2005 10:05:43 AM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

Ditto

The proper lens hood will protect the lens as well if not better than an UV/skylight filter for most rough abuse such as dropping or bumping. Sand, sea spray, or such flying debris, etc are the only exceptions where a filter would be a better choice.

I have owned over 200 lenses in my 20+ years of photography and have only ruined a handful of lenses and that came from falls & immersion (including a kid putting a $1200 lens in a punch bowl at a wedding).

Even the best filters increase that chance of image degradation due to loss of contrast, flare and color shifts. The best insurance against damage is actual insurance. That way you are not only protecting your equipment against damage but also theft, and at the same time you are not forced to compromise your photography.

holdingtime

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/10/2005 10:07:08 AM · #7

just a note the UV filter on my 28-105 tamron is 82mm and i paid over 150 not 20 so i am still carful with it also

joezl

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

07/10/2005 10:26:34 AM · #8

In a previous thread somebody posted this link about the subject. I found it interesting.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/10/2005 10:32:03 AM · #9

I haven't noticed any issues with image degradation with having my el-cheapo UV filter on my lens. It's peace of mind for me. Maybe I'll do a comparison some day on image quality...it would be interesting if I found some sort of quality loss with the filter on.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/10/2005 11:22:29 AM · #10

Originally posted by joezl:

In a previous thread somebody posted this link about the subject. I found it interesting.

Interesting link - thanks.

07/10/2005 03:47:10 PM · #11

Thanks joe, for the interesting link. And thanks to everyone for the insight/advice. I think what I may do is purchase a decent quality UV (perhaps the B+W MRC for $35) and keep it in reserve for those situations in which it may be most at risk. I definitely want to protect my investment, but the article at LL has persuaded me to not get overzealous with the filters. Perhaps I will try a little 'testing' as well.. and I'm curious as to whether my current Hoya UV results in much loss of light transmission.. I should figure that one out as well.

Thanks all!

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/11/2005 02:22:00 PM · #12

As an interesting point, someone on dpreview showed center 100% crop shots using idenitcal set up one after another using a cheap S&W UV filter from e-bay ($10), Top of the Line Hoya UV filter ($60), and no filter on his Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS at F2.8. Not one person guessed which shot was with what filter/no filter correctly. He said he even repeated the same thing with flares inducing shots 150 times. His conclusion was that if there is flare in one, there is flare in all. His conclusion was no difference and hence he'll be using the el cheapo filters from now on. Funny thing is many thought the no filter was the worst image and the cheap filter was the best.
Go figure.

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 14:45:09.

07/11/2005 02:45:12 PM · #13

Originally posted by yido:

Funny thing is many thought the no filter was the worst image and the cheap filter was the best.
Go figure.

haha, that is quite funny.. maybe I'll just stick with my current Hoya then (middle-line UV, from what I can remember). thanks for the info, Tom.

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/11/2005 02:58:03 PM · #14

Brian,
Don't you know???
You have to spend atleast 20% of the value of the lens on a filter or all images will look like vomit. Vomit I tell you!!!!
;)

I use those cheap $10 S&W UV filters. They are made in USA and are Multicoated (atleast that's what they say). If there is flare caused by the filter, atleast you can remove it and take another shot. That's the advantage of having instant review with dSLRs.
BTW, I remember reading an article by Popular Photography that stated that they couldn't see any difference in the prints when using cheap vs. expensive filters, so they recommended using cheaper ones.

Avoid Quatary skylights, as they have a red tint to them and makes your images seem blue (I think).

Oh yeah, since your "error 99" Sigma and that cheap filter you are using will make your images look like vomit, I'll take the Macro lens with the filter off your hands for $20, just to be a nice guy.

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 15:00:03.

07/11/2005 03:12:33 PM · #15

Haha - nice try, but I'm starting to really like this lens :). We should all try to get together soon, since July didn't have much. I'll be gone next weekend, and then have tests after that.. but maybe we can work something out. How do you find out about all the LA area events that you attend?

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/11/2005 05:32:28 PM · #16

Originally posted by brianlh:

I have several "community events calender" webpages saved from all the local news webpages, LA visitor and conventions beaureu, and the Pasadena city sites and comb through them each week to see what is coming up. I also belong to Yahoo groups, one for LA Canon dSLR and a generic LA dSLR groups.

BTW, This upcoming Saturday, they are going to have a classic car show and live music bands at Glendale from 5:30 till 8:30PM. The light should be nice if you want to go.

Message edited by author 2005-07-11 17:36:38.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/11/2005 05:35:34 PM · #17

the only lenses I don't use hoods on are... the 50mm because I don't have one, and I'm not gonna pay more for it, and the 100mm ef macro which goes as far as 2 inches into itself. I only have a UV filter on my wide angle lens.

07/11/2005 06:22:32 PM · #18

Originally posted by yido:

Interesting - I'll have to look for some of those sites. I'll be up in SF this weekend visiting a friend so I can't make it - but thanks for the info :)