2 questions for 17-55 f2.8 IS owners

[Bill W]

Do you have a UV filter mounted on your lens and if so which one; regular or slim?


Also do you use a hood?


Please this isn't a discussion on the pros and cons of using the filter or hood, just the use of them on this particular lens.


I'm going to step up to this lens and I will be putting a UV filter on it, but I'm on the fence concerning the hood.


Thanks for your input


Bill

[Madison]

I used to have one but I no longer do. The optical quality of this lens is unsurpassed for me.


1. I used a hood, yes. It controls stray light.


2. I used a UV filter, yes. (a normal one because otherwise you cannot attach a hood).

[Sean Setters]

1. Yes, I use a UV filter (B&W 77mm Regular MRC)


2. Yes, I use a lens hood (3rd party, works great)

[piiooo]

UV? Yes, regular, Hoya HMC.


Hood? Yes!

[Mark Elberson]

UV - Yes


Hood - Yes

[moldovamark]

UV Filter--yes, a Hoya HMC 77mm UV(0) Multicoated (at least that's what it says on the ring. I like to think I can see the subtlest improvement in image quality when it's off, but it may just be my imagination. It's already kept a hunk of gunk from getting on the front lens element.


Hood--yes, not sure who actually makes it, but Adorama sells it under their name. It's an overprice hunk of plastic, but so is the one Canon hood I own, and it does the job.

[quattrophinia]

UV filter = yes (Rodenstock)


Hood = yes (Canon)

[Bill W]

Thanks folks....appreciate the quick responses.


Next purchases; UV and hood.


Regards


Bill

[Alan]

UV B + W


Hood, yes. Canon.

[George Slusher]

Yes, to both: Hoya Super-HMC UV filter & third-party copy of EW-83J hood.

[Tom Carman]

I recommend a "neutral" filter. Nikon make a great one ($100.00 here in Canada). I also purchased the Canon lens hood which is a must.


Happy shooting!





Tom

[Bill W]

Update....I purchased the B&W 77mm Reg MRC UV and a Pearstone hood.


I don't think I need to comment concerning the quality of the B&W but concerning Pearstone hood; it's flimsier (based on the Canon tulip shaped hood for the 17-85) than a Canon hood, the fitting for both "in use" positioning and "reverse" positioning for storage is very rough.


Putting on and removing from the "in use" position is relatively easy, but it isn't a smooth transition. I've used an old fishing trick for multiple piece rods to help smooth the screwing on/off maneuver......I've applied a little skin oil to both the UV and hood. This helped, but it's not great.


Reverse positioning; it has proven to be very difficult aligning to screw on and taking it off is a very delicate procedure. Trying to remove it, I'm extremely careful not to apply too much pressure for fear of breakage.....slow even pressure will finally release it's grip to the UV.


My conclusion; if this is the quality (fit and grade of plastic) I can expect from Pearstone hoods, it is the last one I will purchase and it will be replaced w/a Canon hood.


I consider this a relatively inexpensive experiment.


Thanks again for your input folks and I hope my experience w/a Pearstone hood is helpful.


Bill

[Sean Setters]

The third-party hood I bought for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS wasan Opteka-branded one. I probably got it from Amazon ("http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-EW-83J-Lens-Canon-17-55mm/dp/B0012GWOFK). I've been very happy with it. Unfortunately, they don't seem to sell it anymore.

[asmodai]

I always had a hood on hand for when the lighting conditions called for it, and used it maybe a third of the time (I do a lot at night). I briefly used a UV filter but it caused ghosting, so i got rid of it.