Welcome to the world of Canon (and any other brand) super telephotos, where the very fact that the most expensive lenses on the planet can not be equipped with a "protective" filter maybe should offer some clue as to their actual usefulness.
If you can't "protect" your $13K lens,. I mean why bother with the others?
So maybe you can fit one on this particular zoom, but again, not the prime or any of it's big brothers.
I’m not sure about the latest generation of lenses, but historically many super telephoto lenses had a flat glass plate permanently installed to protect the actual front element. This could be replaced relatively easily and cheaply if needed. So the fact that these larger lenses sometimes don’t take front filters makes no statement about the usefulness of protective filters in general.
CyberDyne wrote:
Welcome to the world of Canon (and any other brand) super telephotos, where the very fact that the most expensive lenses on the planet can not be equipped with a "protective" filter maybe should offer some clue as to their actual usefulness.
If you can't "protect" your $13K lens,. I mean why bother with the others?
So maybe you can fit one on this particular zoom, but again, not the prime or any of it's big brothers.
naddis wrote:
I’m not sure about the latest generation of lenses, but historically many super telephoto lenses had a flat glass plate permanently installed to protect the actual front element. This could be replaced relatively easily and cheaply if needed. So the fact that these larger lenses sometimes don’t take front filters makes no statement about the usefulness of protective filters in general.
Canon decided to get rid of then for cost and weight, but the better lenses like Nikkors still have them on their newer big teles like the 600/4 TC.
The protective elements are slightly curved (meniscus shape) to prevent reflections, and are integrated into the optical design.
naddis wrote:
I’m not sure about the latest generation of lenses, but historically many super telephoto lenses had a flat glass plate permanently installed to protect the actual front element. This could be replaced relatively easily and cheaply if needed. So the fact that these larger lenses sometimes don’t take front filters makes no statement about the usefulness of protective filters in general.
That protective glass on Canon superteles went away with the 1st gen IS lenses. New models came out, prices doubled, and the clear glass went away. Now we're two more generations away from them.
Good to know, thanks! I bet replacing one of those huge elements isn’t cheap. I’m a firm believer in protective filters/elements as I work in harsh conditions and I’ve never personally seen any quality difference when using one.
CyberDyne wrote:
That protective glass on Canon superteles went away with the 1st gen IS lenses. New models came out, prices doubled, and the clear glass went away. Now we're two more generations away from them.
