Filter or no filter for 85 1.2?

[Joel Bookhammer]

So some one you know I have recently purchased the Canon 85 1.2 L, my question is should I use a filter to protect the front element or not. And if so what is the best quality filter I can purchase for this lens, or for the matter of fact my other lenses as well.


Thanks


Joel

[Maleko]

Yes, and best one to get really is a nice quality UV filter.

[Mark Elberson]

should I use a filter to protect the front element or not. And if so what is the best quality filter I can purchase for this lens, or for the matter of fact my other lenses as well.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



B+W 72mm MRC UV Filter ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B+W-72mm-MRC-UV-Filter-Review.aspx)

[Joel Bookhammer]

Thanks Mark I forgot Bryan had reviewed acouple.


Thanks


Joel

[ShutterbugJohan]

I agree with Mark. The B+Ws are awesome.

[Cory]

With a lens that expensive with a front piece of glass that big I'd get at minimum a plain glass filter just to protect it.

[G Thomas]

Sweet lens! I love mine! :)


I'm actually of the opposite opinion regarding UV filters. B+W filters are very very nice to be sure, but they're actually only slightly cheaper than most front elements. It cost $150 to replace the front element on a 28-300L, which is actually a more expensive lens. Now, I don't actually know what it costs to replace the front element on an 85L so I could be off-base. The other things to consider about filters is that they're pretty tough to get off lenses in some cases of damage (I know this from experience!). Also, scratches and dings to the front element rarely affect image quality. As for resale value, just go ahead and send it to Canon for element replacement if you want a better sale.


Just my opinion, though!

[alexniedra]

Filter = YES!



Cheap filter = NO!


Hoya makes good HMC filters that are multi-coated, and B+W's are simply the best.

[Daniel Browning]

Personally, I only use protective filters in harsh conditions like spraying sand/dirt, and even then I often take it off to reduce flare. Only the highest quality multicoated, of course.


For all other conditions, I don't use a protective filter. The reason is that they always cause flare, even the best ones. Sometimes the difference is slight-to-imperceptible, but other times it's more apparent. I go to a lot of trouble to get the best image quality, and I'd rather risk damaging the lens than accept lower image quality on all my shots.


In any case, I think the risk is pretty low. Look at what Roger Cicala (of LensRentals.com) wrote ("http://lensblogger.typepad.com/lensblogger/2008/03/the-myth-of-uv.html):





700: number of lenses rented in 2007

16,000: number of weeks of heavy use (308 years!)

6: total number of damaged front elements
$2,255: cost to replace the 6 front elements
$28,000: cost of 700 UV filters at wholesale (about $40 per filter).






Keep in mind that lens rentals go through much heavier usage than your standard photography.

[Keith B]

Sweet lens! I love mine! :)


I'm actually of the opposite opinion regarding UV filters. B+W filters are very very nice to be sure, but they're actually only slightly cheaper than most front elements. It cost $150 to replace the front element on a 28-300L, which is actually a more expensive lens. Now, I don't actually know what it costs to replace the front element on an 85L so I could be off-base. The other things to consider about filters is that they're pretty tough to get off lenses in some cases of damage (I know this from experience!). Also, scratches and dings to the front element rarely affect image quality. As for resale value, just go ahead and send it to Canon for element replacement if you want a better sale.


Just my opinion, though!






I'm on board with this. I believe UV filters are for beach days just to keep the elements out. I'm a hood guy. I think they offer the most protection with out image compromise. So if I had the 85 1.2 it wouldn't have a UV unless I was at the beach on windy day.

[Oren]

Daniel:


2255 / 6 = 375.8 - that's what you will be paying for a damaged *front element*. If you ask me, other damages can occur thanks to dust, dirt and moisture, but let's assume that the only possible damage is a broken front element, that would cost you $375.


40*4 = 160 - that's what you will be paying for 4 (assuming 4 lenses) UV filters.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Well I have ordered one to be on the safe side.


Thanks everyone


Joel


P.S. Anyone have any examples of filtered versus non filtered with the same shot?

[Oren]

Sorry Joel, I don't have since I take all my shots with the UV filter on and I doubt I'd see any noticeable difference if I took it off. Yes, maybe flare and such, but sometimes it's nice and has some added value to the picture (my opinion at least). Also, I doubt in how many situations where you have strong flare, taking the same shot without the filter would make such a big difference.

[Gian Luca]

Personally I agree with Daniel. I use UV only in case of bad weather or extreme conditions. I notice a sharper image, a faster shutter speed, and less problems of flare, even with the best quality filter.


The Hood is a great protection for the front element.

[ThomasJ]

Hi Joel,





I also own a Canon 85mm f1,2 L. It kicks ass! Enjoy the lens.


I personally have UV Filters for protection on all my lenses. To me, a protected front element is more valuable than max-quality images. Since I don't do photography for a living, I can accept some image degradation. Honestly though, I think the difference isn't so crucial.... With a wide-open aperture the 85mm L lens tends to ghost/flare anyway a little, the filter doesn't really make that much of a difference...


A new 50$ filter wouldn't hurt me. A new 300$ front element would very well!


I use Hoya HD UV filters. (HD as in heavy duty, not high definition!) They kick ass, and are made from a more tougher glass than most. Which means, they are harder to break when you drop them.. They should be on par with the B+W filters quality wise, I guess.





@Gian Luca:


Faster shutter speed without a UV filter? what filter do you use? Sure it's not a polarization filter? Good UV filters don't seriously affect shutter speeds so much.


Tom

[iND]

I agree the face is not as well focused as the shoes.


Did you use a single point focus? If so which point did you choose?

[Keith B]

I always love when someone posts a pic or tells a story of a lens that was saved by a filter. The filter is alway shattered and jammed on the lens and my response is, " Great! Glad you saved the lens. Imagine if you had a hood on it, you probably wouldn't have had any damage at all."


I don't know if some folks realize, a filter will not absorb any shock and the lens and body absorb it all. A hood will absorb quite a bit of the shock and could save the internals of both lens and body.


I know from personal experience shock will take out a USM even in an L lens.

[Cory]

With me it's almost more about just general protection. Whacking your lens on something accidentally, the random chance of getting hit by something (like a baseball - I've been hit in the face twice with soccer balls), using the lens on a beach (as I was just over a week ago) and getting even just that saltwater mist on your lens face (say you say: Weather sealing?)


Call me crazy, but on a $1800-$2000 lens I'm a little more comfortable with a protective filter on it.

[Fink_Studios]

As I do belive that all filters do degrade image quality even if it is unnoticable I personally still use them for these two reasons #1 I would like to mention yes high quality fliters like B+W and Heilopan have less of a quality effect and point 2. All but the super tele lens that are weather sealed are not fully sealed unless they have a filter on them

Hope this gives you some insight into filters

Happy shooting