I have acquired a 28-135 is lens. I have read a few other posts on this topic, but i wanted to ask the question and get your opinion on this actual lens from people who are or have been in my situation.
I am wondering if there is any point to put a filter on it considering the cheap cost of replacing the lens. If i wanted to get a good filter for it I'd be looking at 100 bucks for a filter to put on a 250-300 dollar lens. I have a filter on my 70-200 to help protect the front element, but this was a significantly larger investment than the 28-135.
Also the lens is "ok" but optically its no wheres near IQ of my 70-200. I don't want to possibly degrade the image quality by putting an unnecessary filter on it.
I'm in the no filter crowd. Others will disagree but I don't have filters on any of my lenses. I just figure if it needed to be there then Canon would have put it there.
I am wondering if there is any point to put a filter on it considering the cheap cost of replacing the lens. If i wanted to get a good filter for it I'd be looking at 100 bucks for a filter to put on a 250-300 dollar lens.
When I bought this lens in 1999 it cost nearly $600! It's really dropped to $250?
Since 1990, I've ruined the front element of two lenses for lack of a filter. Both times I was using a hood. Doggies noses, kiddie fingers, sand and tree branches can nail you at anytime. I started using a UV filter when I noticed salt spray on my front element after only about 15 minutes of shooting (I live near the ocean). I simply remove the filter when I get home, run water over it and wipe with a microfiber cloth.
I've haven't bought a new filter since last year but I seem to recall a 72mm multicoated Hoya going for about $50, not 100.
There are avalanches of arguments on the filter/no filter across the Internet. Just Google it.
When using a high quality filter, it comes down to personal choice, as the impact on IQ is imperceptible, unless you have a filter/lens combo which is prone to flare - using a filter can only add to that issue.
Some lenses are only "weather-sealed" when a filter is installed, but I dont think your 28-135 is one of them.
For my 17-55 I use a Hoya Pro 1 D filter, as it seems to have kept the dust out of it. I also have the same filter on my 70-200/2.8 IS, only b/c I am out in some pretty harsh conditions with it more often than not (read: wind/rain in a coastal city). For my less expensive lenses, I dont use a filter, only a hood.
Gochugogi wrote:
When I bought this lens in 1999 it cost nearly $600! It's really dropped to $250?
Since 1990, I've ruined the front element of two lenses for lack of a filter. Both times I was using a hood. Doggies noses, kiddie fingers, sand and tree branches can nail you at anytime. I started using a UV filter when I noticed salt spray on my front element after only about 15 minutes of shooting (I live near the ocean). I simply remove the filter when I get home, run water over it and wipe with a microfiber cloth.
I've haven't bought a new filter since last year but I seem to recall a 72mm multicoated Hoya going for about $50, not 100....Show more →
There are so many of these lens out in kits they are for sale on the B&S for as low as 200!
Best price i can find in Canada is 68 bucks plus tax plus shipping..so pretty much 100!
you just answered your own question, then! 