A sealed barrel without a sealed front element will not work. Canon is specific about that, for this particular lens, you actually need a filter to seal it completely. Just watch how the front element moves in the barrel with the zooming action, and you will see why.
Other than that, for most other lenses, I'd avoid extra glass in the front as well, unless of course you have to work in dominantly dusty or wet conditions.
The 16-35L II is already very prone to flare given it's huge coverage, it's also pushing it a bit for sharpness in the corners, I really really wouldn't put any glass infront of it. I gave up on pretective filters, including the top hoya pro 1 digital series when I realised how much flare they were giving me on a 24-70 and 24-105L lenses if there was a light source in the frame.
You would need slim filter for this lens, I am using B+W they are easy to clean and exceptional in quality. Even if it is weathersealed lens you would need filter to complete it. I am getting most of my filters from this place: maxsaver.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Is the UV filter for protection? The 16-35mm f/2.8L II is weather sealed. I would go without it. Adding another glass to your lens may increase the likelihood of ghosting/flare on your shots. Even if you scratch/break the front element, it's not expensive to replace it.
+1
Unless you are working in truly hazardous environments (well beyond some ocean spray, a bit of rain, or some dust), there is little or no reason to stick another layer of glass on the front of your lens unless it is a filter than has some image-producing value, such as a CPL or a neutral density filter.
You certainly don't want to put a cheap filter on such a good lens, and the difference between the cost of a high quality filter and the cost of replacing the front element multiplied by the very small probability that you'll even have a problem... makes for some very expensive insurance.
as I said before, I've already managed to scratch the front element on several lenses in my various trips to bali, singapore, caribbean, etc., so in my case the insurance would have paid off. The other factor is resale. If you go to sell a lens - particularly on this forum - one of the first things folks ask is whether the front and rear elements are clean and scratch free.
Breitling65 wrote:
You would need slim filter for this lens, I am using B+W they are easy to clean and exceptional in quality. Even if it is weathersealed lens you would need filter to complete it. I am getting most of my filters from this place: maxsaver.net
I used to buy all my B+W from Maxsaver as well, while living in Hong Kong actually, which is where Maxsaver is. Someone told me once that they were great knock offs which explained the price (they are very affordable). I didnt believe it until I recently bought my 35L and B+W filter from BH just for the ease of getting it all in one place. All of my filters are the slim F-Pro and the ones I have from Hong Kong's Maxsaver are definitely different than the one I got from BH....even down to the package. I regard BH as a top notch operation. I also am very aware how well China can copy things. After living in China for almost 2 years, I would tend to believe him now that I have seen for myself.
I don't remember where I encountered the info, but I recall that some B+W filters are legitimately made in HK/China, and they are different rings and packages, and cheaper. It seems like I bought one a year or so ago off ebay, and after satisfying my curiousity by comparing to my existing B+W UV (found matching in glass and coating), that I then found something written about it being genuine.
the amazon price is very similar and they have free shipping with prime membership so I'm inclined to buy from there. Plus, i'll get it in 2 days instead of 30 from HK !
I have a Rodenstock UV that isn't branded as 'slim' but doesn't appear to give me anymore vignetting at 16 that shooting without it.
I have a Heliopan Slim SH-PMC Polfilter that I bought from BH.
I like the Heliopans as they are Schott glass (same as B+W and Rodenstock) and have numbers on the rim that I find make it easier to alter the level of polarisation along with looking in the VF.
Whether a lens hood provides protection or not depends on a couple things. Most importantly, it has to be on the camera when the potential damage occurs. And if it is on the camera then the hood needs to be a relatively long, deep hood, not one of those narrow little things Canon sells with wide angle zoom lenses that provide very little protection against anything including flare. Since I don't keep a hood on a lens at all times and since the hoods on my wide angle zooms are essentially useless anyhow I do always keep a UV filter on the lens. My tests have shown no degradation of the image from my B+W or Heliopan UV filters and I'm very happy to never have to worry about an overhanging tree branch or bush scratching the lens when I'm making a photograph.
However, this is obviously a personal choice thing and I certainly have no argument with someone who prefers a hood to a filter or nothing at all. It's their equipment and their choice.
If you are are going to get a "protective" filter, simply get a clear glass coated filter from one of the mainline manufacturers and avoid the cheapies. But you already knew that, right?
Is the non-lens filter contingent willing to chip in to pay the OP the cost of repair if the front element of the lens is damaged by not using a filter? I didn't think so.
I use good quality multi-coated filters in most lighting situations - including in a dark room using strobes. When shooting at night - dark with bright lights in the background, the filter comes off to avoid ghosting. I've never had a photo rejected for publication because a filter was used.
ilikeglass wrote:
Is the non-lens filter contingent willing to chip in to pay the OP the cost of repair if the front element of the lens is damaged by not using a filter? I didn't think so.
Wow, what a remarkably inappropriate post! We told him what we do, in some cases including compelling reasons for same, so that he, a big boy, can make up his own mind. As you know, despite your snarky post.
I use good quality multi-coated filters in most lighting situations - including in a dark room using strobes. When shooting at night - dark with bright lights in the background, the filter comes off to avoid ghosting. I've never had a photo rejected for publication because a filter was used.
Good for you.
As with many "debates," there are two sides to this one. Each person has to choose, and live with the consequences. I have protective filters on most of my lenses, but I chose not to have one with this lens, for a variety of reasons.
I've never had a photo rejected for publication because I didn't use a protective filter. Whatever that means (not much, actually, just as your statement didn't mean much).
