Sorry, I don't quite remember what the Sharp cut means. Maybe someone else can chime in.
Also, forgot to mention that the pics are from the 100-400L. I also have the sharp cut on my 24-70L,a Tiffen UV filter on my 17-40L, and Hoya Super HMC's on my 400 f5.6L prime, 70-200 f2.8L IS, 85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2L. I've never really noticed a difference between them. Just wanted to easy your concerns. I shoot with my 100-400L and 24-70L a lot and have never noticed any problems.
from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the front element is kinda desgned to be replaceable at a (relative) decent cost (~$200 perhaps).
If you think of the high end filters running at around $100 and up, putting one on a $1000+ lens seems really questionable (IMO).
FWIW, I don't put 'em on either of my "L" lenses (28-70 or 135) or any of my other glass, but they are hooded all of the time.
First off...filter are needed to complete the weather sealing on some of that "L" glass...
2nd.. I hate anything that accumulates on the front elements of my lenses (dust, oil, etc..) These accumulations will affect contrast, color, and sharpness to a greater extent than will a filter. When the filter gets dirty, I clean it, without any worry that I am scratching the front element of my expensive lenses.
Buy a good filter...use it.
If it made sense to skip on filters from any practical standpoint..there would likely be an elimination of the filter thread in the design of all lenses...
Nu2Digital wrote:
First off...filter are needed to complete the weather sealing on some of that "L" glass...
2nd.. I hate anything that accumulates on the front elements of my lenses (dust, oil, etc..) These accumulations will affect contrast, color, and sharpness to a greater extent than will a filter. When the filter gets dirty, I clean it, without any worry that I am scratching the front element of my expensive lenses.
Buy a good filter...use it.
If it made sense to skip on filters from any practical standpoint..there would likely be an elimination of the filter thread in the design of all lenses...
Some of what you say doesn't make sense to me. L lenses that are weatherproof are fully sealed.
Cheap filters will introduce much more problems such as flare and loss of contrast than will a slightly dirty lens.
Lenses are very hard and are resistant to scratching.
Buy a good filter...use it...that makes sense but good is the operative term.
It is notable that damaging threads is at least as likely as damaging the front element. That can get very expensive. I dropped only one lens in my days, a Zeiss 50/1.4. A cheap filter was dented but didn't break, hard to remove but when I did the lens was as good as new.
Eliminating threads on lenses, that's the part that makes the least sense. I can buy into not using basic expensive UV or clear filters to simply protect lenses but there are a lot more reasons to use filters than protection. Polarizing, special effect, neutral density, graduated ND, warming (especially for film uses), all these filters can be crucial, a lot more than protecting your lens. I think if protecting the lens was the only possible use for those threads a lot of lenses would come without them.
franzdom wrote:
L lenses that are weatherproof are fully sealed.
That's not true. The 17-40L is a "weather sealed" lens, it has the little rubber ring on the lens mount, but if you read the instructions Canon clearly states it needs a filter to complete the sealing. If you look a the front element it moves slightly in and out with zooming and there is a gap around the edge of it. No filter, not truely weather sealed.
