the only filter I would purchase would be a B+W CPL, maybe a B+W ND and a SR of some sort. I shoot quite a bit in the rain, and don't have a filter. There is no "right" or "wrong", I just think UV filters are a waste of $$$
jcolwell wrote:
I only use protective UV or clear filters on the rare occassions that I shoot in a hostile environment with blowing sand, salt water spray, and similar challenges.
+1 This is the only time I use one otherwise it has a hood on it for protection.
The 1.4 is a great lens....you will be pleased you bought it.
I often use KOOD filters and although the 1.4 might be cheap to some......it might not be to you if you damage the front element.
I heard some disparaging remarks about KOOD filters so the first one I bought (for the 85 1.8) I tested with and without the filter fitted. Absolutely no difference in IQ.
I also had a Canon filter on a prime lens....again, on or off, the IQ was identical.
When you get your filter, just do a critical test...then make up your own mind....
99% of my lenses are "L" lenses. There's no way I'd put a cheap (relatively speaking) piece of glass on top of premium optics. It's like putting budget tires on a Ferrari.
Pixel1970 wrote:
99% of my lenses are "L" lenses. There's no way I'd put a cheap (relatively speaking) piece of glass on top of premium optics. It's like putting budget tires on a Ferrari.
Huummmm...does that mean you have 99 L lenses and one other? Or 198 L lenses and 2 other?
Don't kill the messenger, but I've taken pictures with and without a $20 filter from bestbuy on an L lens and pixel peeped it and saw absolutely no difference. Paying 100+ for a filter just absolutely blows my mind, and I'm in the field everyday.
Lens hood is my #1 protector. Never used filters ever. Saw filters that massively impaired the IQ of lenses. If I bought a filter it would probably be a top-line B&W brand filter from http://maxsaver.net/ (formerly hvstar). However, on a $350 lens...it's not worth it.
I'm sold on filters. I shoot landscape, usually around rivers and lakes, a CPL lives on my lens 95% of the time. The $250. filter (ouch ) has saved my 16 - 35 and my 24 - 105. Rocks can be slippery when wet. Rick
It makes little sense to put a protective filter on this lens. You don't want to put a cheap filter on it for optical reasons, but putting an expensive, high quality filter on a lens of this price amounts to extremely expensive insurance.
The front element is set in fairly far on this lens anyway. Put a lens cap on when you are not actively shooting and use a hood.
Dan
dortizphoto wrote:
Greetings everyone!
I just ordered a Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime for my Canon 1Dmk3 which took some getting over since I felt guilty about it. Well, now I'm faced with another dilemma ... which filter to put on that lens. I plan to keep this lens on the body 99.5% of the time and I want to project it, but at the same time don't want something in front of it that will jeopardize image quality.
That being said, I believe I thought too quickly and was sold on the "Hoya" product so I ordered a 58mm filter. The following one to be exact ...
Rick Schump wrote:
I'm sold on filters. I shoot landscape, usually around rivers and lakes, a CPL lives on my lens 95% of the time. The $250. filter (ouch ) has saved my 16 - 35 and my 24 - 105. Rocks can be slippery when wet. Rick
So in other words, you broke two $250 filters? Would be curious to know what actual damage would have been in said an incident without the filter. The only time I had a filter on a lens it fell down the hill, and I lost the filter plus ended up paying Canon god knows how much money for replacing the filter ring, which was taken down by the filter.
jcolwell wrote:
Just sit.
This thread was worth a read for the conversation between Ralph and Jim.
Ours was similar, btw. And our dog is part German Shepherd...
And on topic, I would only use a UV filter to complete weather sealing on a lens like the 50 L (which requires a filter for that), or on others if dealing with ocean spray. Cranberry juice can wreak havoc on front elements.
Can't imagine shooting without a lens hood, except in the rare circumstance of needing to get the lens in a very tight space where the hood won't fit, or the somewhat more common occurrence of avoiding a shadow in macro work.
Rick Schump wrote:
I'm sold on filters. I shoot landscape, usually around rivers and lakes, a CPL lives on my lens 95% of the time. The $250. filter (ouch ) has saved my 16 - 35 and my 24 - 105. Rocks can be slippery when wet. Rick
well a CPL is a bit different than a UV filter, as a polarizer has an effect that post cannot mimic..I hear ya on the rocks being slippery up here - only thing i have damaged was a finger.
stanj wrote:
Next time you have a few spare minutes, take a picture of your house at night. Or just the street lamp, in such a way that it's off center. You'll end up with two - one exactly opposite, upside down. That's what the filter did.
This. I borrowed someone's D80 once and they had a 50mm with a UV filter on it. I've never used filters so imagine my dismay when I reviewed my shots and found half of them ruined by flare.
I can see maybe using a filter if you're using a 50L that isn't completely sealed without one and shooting in a typhoon or hurricane. But a EF50? The focus ring is so sloppy you could probably get grains of rice inside that lens if you tried hard enough. That and the front element is relatively small and deeply recessed from the front filter anyway. Even without the hood, unless you're using your lens as a hammer I don't see how anything is going to touch the front element; not that it matters, though, damage to the front element has negligible effects on image quality anyway.
Maybe if you're using something like a 135L that a large, vulnerable front element it would make more sense.. but you should really be using a hood in the first place. That being said I do enjoy buying used glass from people who say, "protected by a UV filter since day one." There are two types of people: those who regard their gear as tools and don't go out of their way to baby it, and those who regard their gear as collectibles. I consider myself the former, but I prefer to buy from the latter if given a chance..
Rick Schump wrote:
I'm sold on filters. I shoot landscape, usually around rivers and lakes, a CPL lives on my lens 95% of the time. The $250. filter (ouch ) has saved my 16 - 35 and my 24 - 105. Rocks can be slippery when wet. Rick
Here's one thing I've noticed. I've seen a lot of posts of broken filters where the user says, "the filter saved my lens!" Not to disagree with your statement specifically, it just reminded me. I've very rarely ever seen someone actually break their front element, but I've seen lots and lots of broken filters. My hypothesis is that the filters are actually more fragile and shatter on impact where the lens otherwise would have been fine; thus actually exposing the lens to more risk due to the broken shards of glass.
dortizphoto wrote:
Well, the verdict is in. Not so much how the lens optics are or how it behaved without the filter. I took a brief "snap shot" after we finished having dinner this evening as I wanted to try f/1.4 ISO200 and 1/100th to see what I would get. The filter was on, and one snap went off.
Clearly I can see a bluish glow around the blown lights, and (at least to me) the image appears kinda soft. However, I won't give up on it just yet as I know this lens takes some getting use to. One plus to all this, my 1Dmk3 is FAR LIGHTER and has a significantly smaller footprint than tugging it around with the 24-70 f/2.8L attached.
Tomorrow, I will put this lens/filter to the test. I have three photojournalist assignments (two at night, one during the day) for me to test and practice using this lens.
In the meantime, if anyone would like to generously offer a few tips/advice on shooting with this lens and a 1.3 crop body, I'd certainly welcome and humbly appreciate your feedback.
The bluish glow is more likely just inherent fringing than anything else due to shooting wide open. Similarly, the softness also has nothing to do with the filter--most any lens with that wide of an aperture is going to be soft wide open. Stop it down to at least f/1.8-2 rather than using it wide open and you'll find the performance significantly better. Stop it down to f/4 and it will be as sharp/sharper than anything in Canon's lineup.
As you have seen - there is a no-filter camp and a always-filter camp. I doubt that this will ever change (I've seen the same arguments in magazines and on forums for years).
For my - I use B&W MRC (multi-coated). I like the brass rings they use and excellent glass and coating.
A lens hood is always a good idea (one I sometimes don't use) and will help protect your lens (filter or no filter).
Hell, how one can be happy without? ... 
