Lol. Had my 350D less than a month with the 18-55 Kit lens. Have borrowed a few lenses from friends and as I wanted a bit more reach have decided to go for the 70-200 F4 L. So my first lens is more than I paid for the entire camera kit.

Thanks to those who gave advice on here - especially to use Kerso as £300 delivered for the above lens (including £40 cashback) is not bad at all considering it lists on canon.co.uk as £610 RRP.

I was a bit put off by the size initially - as lets face it, its massive after the kit lens. But I really like the build quality of the L lenses and once in the hand it feels solid and steady.

Am looking forward to taking some wakeboarding pics as a boat passenger down my club. Could probably have done with IS but its twice the price and as a noob I really cant justify that kind of money.

Simon

P.S. Would you recommend getting a filter? With me looking at going on a speedboat with the chance of water splashes and travelling to the maldives with sand and salt Im thinking about additional protection over and above the hood that comes with it. But I also read that filters can hinder rather than help picture quality unless you spend decent money.

P.P.S Does anyone have this lens and have a Lowepro lens case? Was looking at lens case #3 but not sure if its the right size.

Cheers,
Simon

You can get a decent UV filter for not bad money, and it's worth it to protect your front element, not just from sea water, but from dinging into something!

I think I paid about £70 for a 82mm UV for my Bigma, and I couldn't tell any difference in quality from before I got it.

Obviously if you want to start using CPs and the like then the price is gonna climb.

Geezer

Cheers for the reply. Are you saying that your £70 filter showed no difference over a cheapy filter or over no filter?

Oh and what are CPs - polarising lenses? Not down with all this lingo yet :)

Simon

It showed no difference over no filter. I couldn't really get a cheapy, 82mm is quite big so your choice is limited.

CP - circular polariser, yes. If you want to get one, it may be worth considering a Cokin or Lee system so that you only have to fork out once instead of buying filters of all different sizes for your lenses.

Geezer

According to Canon website I need a 67mm filter for my new lens. Was about to order a new CF card from 7dayshop and saw this Hoya Lens:

UV Filter - HMC - 67mm

Hoya HMC filters are renowned for their ability to minimise reflection at the filter surfaces which reduces flare and ghosting. The result is an average light transmission of over 97% giving sharp contrast and well balanced colour. Hoya HMC filters are recommended for enhancing the performance of today's multicoated lenses. A UV filter absorbs ultraviolet rays, and can also be used as a permanent lens protector.

Is only £13. Would that be ok?

Cheers,
Simon

You just paid £300 for good glass. I wouldn't put £13 worth in front of it ;). Push the budget a little further for Hoya pro or B&W.
I have the no.3 Lowepro bag for the 70-200 lens. It works well and has the same velcro attachment strap system(can't remember the name) as the larger bags so you could for instance attach it to the side or back of a Slingshot bag.

Yep a mate said plump for the PRO-1 version so Ive ordered one from Digital Rev on Ebay.

Cheers,
Simon

IMHO a UV filter does very little on a digital camera anyway so save your money and go for the £13 version or just get a 'lens protect' optically neutral filter.

I'd happily pay out the extra for the B&W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polariser filter but when it comes down to something that is basically stopping the front element from getting scratched it's just not worth spending a fortune on it.

Just my 2p worth ;)

Well its ordered now so all done. All in all about £8 extra so no hardship. I wasnt really thinking in terms of UV protection - more that it was better quality optics compared to the £13. Probably no difference but hey ho :)

Simon

Simon,

In all honesty only use the filter when you feel the need for extra protection.

However slight, you will probably see some image quality degredation.

There have been loads of discussions on some of the Canon forums from people who feel their lenses are not quite as sharp or focusing as they should be. There's a school of thought that blames uv/skylight filters many keep on their lenses 24/7.

Its certainly been a "common" issue on the 100-400L, with reported fixes simply by taking the filter off.

I'm with CW on this and don't use UV/Skylight filters any more.

For protection in extreme circumstances, yes. For general protection, no - the lens hood does that pretty well.

HTH

I hate filters - they can do nothing but degrade the image, so I only use them when I have to.

Dusty, sandy environments, especially with sea spray invloved is one such situtation. There is no such thing as a 100% sealed camera or lens.

Use only the best filters you can get, cover your camera as best you can, and at the end of the day, extend the zoom and wipe everytihng with a lightly damp cloth. Allow to dry, then get into the detail with a small paint brush or similar, being careful to remove dust rather than push it further into the mechanism. Only change lenses with extreme care.

Once on a really salty day, I took the filter off and rinsed it. Dabbed with some kitchen roll, and then when completely dry, polished off with a microfibre cloth. Not advisable for cameras or lenses :lol1:

Mabe this is overkill, but I don't suffer camera failures and all my lenses are dust-free :)

Richard.

Thanks for the feedback. So the general consensus is only use when really needed.

What about the hood? As its an L one comes with it. Obviously I'd use it in bright conditions to stop sun glare on the lens but surely at lower light levels your stopping more light getting to the lens?

Thanks,
Simon

i don't use filters for protection. canon/nikon carefully consider how much glass to put in a lens and with specific coatings, only for us to arbitrarily screw on another piece of plastic :cuckoo:

I haven't removed my 85L in a year - one way to stay dust free :D

Thanks for the feedback. So the general consensus is only use when really needed.

What about the hood? As its an L one comes with it. Obviously I'd use it in bright conditions to stop sun glare on the lens but surely at lower light levels your stopping more light getting to the lens?

Thanks,
Simon

Simon,

I use the hood most of the time, irrespective of light conditions on all of my lenses. No noticable vignetting (edge light fall off) with the 70-200 and the hood on a 1.3 crop so you'll be fine on the 1.6 crop.

Its not just the sun that can cause flare, and it gives the aforementioned protection as well.

The light falling on your sensor is the light the lens "sees" within its field of view as far as exposures are concerned. The hood is designed not to change that.


HTH

The light that the lens hood stops is what you don't want in on your lens as it's not coming from your subject.

I wouldn't bother on a flat grey day, but definitely would in any sunlight or with artificial light:thumb: I'm sure Hoppy will be along soon to say 'Buy one and use it!';)

I'm sure Hoppy will be along soon to say 'Buy one and use it!';)

Buy one and use it! It cannot ever do any harm (provided you get the right one for your lens), can often help minimise flare which will prevent flat, washed-out images, and offers physical excellent protection.

OK CW? :lol1:

Richard.

Yup Richard, I do agree, but you say it better :thumb:

Lol :)

I am right in thinking that Canon L lenses always come with the appropriate canon hood anyway?

Simon

I hate filters - they can do nothing but degrade the image

Come on Richard, that's nonsense! :nono: ;)

The average zoom lens probably has anything from 10-20 elements in it, so adding one more top quality bit of glass (who said plastic! :wonder: ) won't make a noticeable difference to image quality.

Simon, the Hoya you have bought can stay screwed to the front of your 70-200 in perpetuity, without you having to worry about any degradation in IQ. If anyone says any different, post up two pictures, one with and one without the filter and I bet nobody will be able to tell the difference!

Anyway, replacing a scratched filter is a lot easier and cheaper than replacing the front element! :)

I have never used a filter and so far have never had a scratch on the front element of the lens. What I always use, is the lens hood that goes with the lens. I hit the lens hood sometimes to objects, so I does this 'side-job' in addition to keeping the flares away.

Lol :)

I am right in thinking that Canon L lenses always come with the appropriate canon hood anyway?

Simon

Yes :thumb:

Come on Richard, that's nonsense! :nono: ;)


This argument goes on and on, and you make your own choice :)

To make my position clear, I am not that against filters as 95% of the time a good one will make little detectable difference. But they do make a difference - search for examples like The Filter Flare Factor (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml). There are plenty more :(

However, I am very much pro lens hoods which often do make a real difference, can never do anything but improve a picture, and always offer good physical protection.

I may live in a small world, but I've never heard of anybody having to replace the front element of their lens through 'normal' damage. On the other hand, I have heard of front elements being scratched to death by a shattered filter, usually when the lens is dropped.

In conclusion, use a protection filter if you like, but always use the lens hood.

Cheers,

Richard.

PS Edited to add, if you use a filter, keep it as clean as your the naked lens. Some sea spray, jam or a finger print, or an inquisitive dog's nose just smeared around the filter with a cloth will definitely effect your pictures. People worry about specs of dust which do no harm at all, but a filter that has a smeary film of oil on it (which is often hard to see) ie finger print, will do you absolutely no favours.

If you want to check for an optimum lens hood, it's easy. If you really want to now, I'll describe how. Applies to filters, too :D

To be blunt and totally in my own honest opinion, anyone who fails to put a UV or Skylight filter on the end of an expensive lens is foolish. I don't want to offend anyone who will disagree, but the optical difference it will make is so completely completely negligible and the protective factor is just so so obvious. I will not leave the house with a brand new lens unless it has a filter screwed on. I have had lenses for ten/twelve years plus which have front optics in mint condition purely due to the filter. I've stumbled down sand dunes chasing birds (feathered) and had the front of the lens face down in the beach - saved by filter. I've countless times brushed up against people on dance floors and in crowds at weddings - worse case scenario I'll get a scratch on the filter. I am out and about with my cameras nearly every day for either paid work or personal and the filter goes on from day one, stays on and gets changed when its scratched or starting to cloud up with age having reached the end of its natural life. If you are a hobbyist who is happy to use the lens ultra carefully at all times popping the lens cap back on in between shots then you hopefully shouldn't have a problem. Otherwise if you are going to work the lens at all hard then get a filter on and just forget about it.

Exception to the rule, my 16mm fisheye which I can't put a filter on.......and its a constant worry having to actually clean the front element!:eek: :eek:

Similarly, stick anything on the front of the EF-S 10-22 and you will see it, either as vignetting or actually visible :eek:

The hood isn't visible but at the 10mm end it is noticeable in the vignetting in the corners. This is more than without the hood so it must be having an effect although I would still rather use it than not as that lens drags every scrappy bit of light in even if it's behind you ;)

The only time I would bother with a 77mm lens protect filter is for rallying, all those flying stones are too unpredictable. Rest of the time I've not got much use for one although I do use circular polarisers and sometimes grads for my landscape work.

One more thing - in a Columbo stylee - a few years back I had an 80-200 f2.8 nicked, I replaced it with an identical one then dropped that one on its nose on tarmac! The filter was completely smashed but the front element totally unscathed. (I should add the internal rods etc of the lens were also totally knackered.:D) Nevertheless, my point is that I got a third lens and still have the one I dropped to plunder for spares should I need to as the optics are all intact. It would have helped if I had got round to putting the hood on as well mind you before I dropped it.:rolleyes: Think I got distracted by a pretty girl, that usually precedes an accident. I once put a camera down on a table then walked away to talk to a young lady forgetting that the flash was attached via a cable to the battery pack on my belt. That was another expensive day out!:freak3:

To be blunt and totally in my own honest opinion, anyone who fails to put a UV or Skylight filter on the end of an expensive lens is foolish.... If you are a hobbyist who is happy to use the lens ultra carefully at all times popping the lens cap back on in between shots then you hopefully shouldn't have a problem. Otherwise if you are going to work the lens at all hard then get a filter on and just forget about it.

Agreed, but I fall into the latter category. In 40 years as an active 'hobbyist' I have never used protection filters, but always use a lens hood. I have never had a damaged lens.

Each to their own. There is no right or wrong answer to this question on filters - it depends on use and circumstances, but I do feel strongly that those that don't bother with a lens hood are, frankly, lazy, cheap-skate mugs.

Regards,

Richard.

<flame suit on :D>

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue Richard. Your advice is always impeccable to newbie snappers, but I also think that filters are a sensible precaution to screw on too.