Saved up my pennies, a lot of pennies! and got the 16-35L today. The instructions say to put a filter on, but I normally don't have filters in place, except for polarizers of course, which the one I have luckily doesn't vignette at all...
So, those that own the 16-35, do you guys/gals put a filter on all the time? and if so, what would you reccomnend AND if you do use one, do you remove it when you go to put on the polarizer? Sorry for the run on questions.
Thanks,
G2
i tested a lens this last sunday, every shot "WITHOUT" the Hoya super pro1 UV i have was on perfect focus and the target was sharp.
with the filter on, all shots were sharp except the one at 17MM...........using my Hoya super pro1 Cir-pol gave the same results..............for some reason, and this happened with my 17-40 and 24-70 i had, the wide angle setting always had problems with focus when using a filter.
Goldenboy, thanks for posting that article.............it goes without saying, that for the most part, filters when sold as a "protective" element is nothing more than a sales gimmick.
The 16-35 needs a filter for its full weather proofing abilities. If this is one of the things that is important to you, then yes...without a doubt. If not, you end up in the same ol' argument about whether to use filters or not.
When using the original (very shallow) hood for the 16-35, the filter was important to keep stray objects (like my fingers) off of the front elements. With the deeper hood for the 24/1.4 attached though, I've been confident enough to leave the filter off most of the time. For the rest of the time when weather sealing is important (near water, out in the open desert, etc) are also the times when I'd have a polarizer attached to the front for the water/sky anyway, so very rarely do I use just the filter on the 16-35 these days.
I've found that flare is often a problem with wides, so I try to shoot them without filters as much as possible.
BrianP wrote:
The 16-35 needs a filter for its full weather proofing abilities. If this is one of the things that is important to you, then yes...without a doubt. If not, you end up in the same ol' argument about whether to use filters or not.
True, Canon recommends that you use a protective filter for the 16-35L and the 17-40L if you want full weather sealing.
Thanks guys, I was shooting some tonight and it seems that some of the shots the focus is off, which is disturbing, being so much money of course, the other lenses I have, the 28-135 IS and the 85 1.8 both focus fine on the 20D, I'll do some more checking/testing but has that been a problem with the 16-35?
G2
Oh well......I've said this adnauseum before. I've used ONLY the Hoya SHMC Pro1 UV(0) filters on ALL of my L and non L lens collection for years now. They've NEVER let me down. I've taken some pretty impressive pictures of sunsets off the Coast of California right into the sun with NO flare whatsoever. I've yet to take a picture with ANY of my lenses and gotten flare in the shot....lucky? heck no. Several years ago when I debated this question of this thread for myself I tried with and without and actually found cases where the Pro1 filters CUT flare.......NOT induced it. So you tweaks can take them off and swear by naked lenses all ya want. My Pro1's go on the minute I open my lenses from their boxes new and I NEVER look back nor remove them. I even have stacked a slim SMC Hoya CP on top with NO deleterious effects.....I fully realize it will send chills right up some pixel peepers back to think of such things.......it works.....and that's all I care about. We are talking about on a 16-35 2.8L as well......
If you look at the back issue of Digital Photo Pro, you'll notice that some the protective elements on the monster telephotos are starting to be curved. (Lenses that can't use threaded filters due to the large front elements) A curved protective element scatters the light rays out rather than back into the camera. I'll look for that issue later if anyone is interested. I think that Hoya and other filter companies should consider making curved protective filters for die-hard filter users.
Yes, I am with Traveler.... All the pixel peepers: eat my shorts!
As far as LL story (and samples) goes: flare will not show up on your image after you take a shot, it is there in front of your eye (when you shoot it) so next time compose properly and you won't have it... And even itf you HAVE to take the shot as it is, there is a solution (like for anything else) called : PS or CS...
On the other hand: once you damage the front element because you did not have a "condom" filter, PS does not help. Only VISA or Master Card or Benjamins....
as a proponent of the use of a protective filter, and yes i also have them on all, there are points in time where the removal under certain lighting conditions may be prudent. high value point source lighting can, even using the best of filters, can cause a level of ghosting/flare in a image that may not be apparent till later when reviewing. for some this may be unacceptable for others ok. just be aware of how your shooting.
mbohunsky wrote:
If you look at the back issue of Digital Photo Pro, you'll notice that some the protective elements on the monster telephotos are starting to be curved. (Lenses that can't use threaded filters due to the large front elements) A curved protective element scatters the light rays out rather than back into the camera. I'll look for that issue later if anyone is interested. I think that Hoya and other filter companies should consider making curved protective filters for die-hard filter users.
Here's the article I was talking about. I tried scanning the text but it looked horrible. SO here it is. This is from the November/December 2004 issue of Digital Photo Pro. The article was named Lenses Go Digital! pg.40-47, 120.
...Fast super-telephoto lenses, though, sport a large protective glass filer in front of the lens element. The flat surface of older versions of these filers have been known to return the bounced light from the imager back into the camera as a ghost image. Canon, and now Nikon, are remedying this by replacing the flat filters with subtly curved meniscus leses that disperse the light away from the image sensor. (for those of us using UV filters to protect our lenses while shooting in though environments, the same risk of ghost images exists as well.)...
What about the time a "protective filter" severely damaged my front element whilst "protecting" it? Since then I prefer to protect my lenses by being very consequent with lens caps and hoods. Much better IMO. About the flare issues, these are very well documented. If you decide to take the small degradation, no problem, by all means do so,everyone to his/her own style, I say.
I used to, at one time, use UV filters - then I could see, as I began "collecting" lenses, that the cost of such filters would detract from my ability to collect more lenses since the filters were eating into my capital
I do not use filters on my lenses.
I figure, if I'm spending upwards of $1500 USD on a lens (70-200 IS), then I'm going to be DAMN sure I'm careful when mounting, dismounting, shooting, etc. with said lens.
I also don't get flare - I don't shoot into the sun.
i keep uv filters on my lenses all the time...mainly for protection. but im very critical of the quality of the filter. the best filter in my opinion on the market currently is the b+w
mbohunsky wrote:
Here's the article I was talking about. I tried scanning the text but it looked horrible. SO here it is. This is from the November/December 2004 issue of Digital Photo Pro. The article was named Lenses Go Digital! pg.40-47, 120.
...Fast super-telephoto lenses, though, sport a large protective glass filer in front of the lens element. The flat surface of older versions of these filers have been known to return the bounced light from the imager back into the camera as a ghost image. Canon, and now Nikon, are remedying this by replacing the flat filters with subtly curved meniscus leses that disperse the light away from the image sensor. (for those of us using UV filters to protect our lenses while shooting in though environments, the same risk of ghost images exists as well.)......Show more →
Milan:
Thanks for sharing the info. Very interesting article. The article says "fast super-telephoto lenses", which they are referring to the 300 2.8L IS, 400 2.8L IS, 500 4L IS, etc., I believe. Since these lenses do not take any front filters as u mentioned; therefore, we don't have to worry about the use of front filter causing ghosting or not
Now, I am wondering, how about the rest of the lenses such as such as the 50 1.4, 135 2L, 200 2.8L, 16-35 2.8L, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, etc. does the ghosting or scattered light occur inside these lenses? or does the coating on these lenses good enough to prevent light scattering inside these lenses?
If the answer is yes for scattered light and no for the coating, Canon better start using better coating inside these lenses because Tamron and Sigma have made lenses that are optimized for digital cameras, the DG and Di series, respectively, which have better coating on their glass elements to prevent reflective light from the sensor's surface.
Also note that the front elements of certain lenses are already curved such as the 16-35 2.8 L, will curved front filter really solve the ghosting problem? or is it better to introduce better coating on the glass elements to prevent ghosting?
Sorry I asked too many questions. I had too much coffee during lunch, and the caffeine is still in my system
Untill last night, I shot with UV filters 100% of the time. I did some night photography and noticed, as always, that I had some ghosting. I figured it was the lens construction, coupled with the highly reflective nature of the CMOS censor. I took off the filter and shoot the same picture. Since I was shooting with a tripod, I knew I'd have to get a good comparison. Low and behold, no ghosting! Now I will no longer use filters with night photography. The Fiter was a Hoya multicoated.
