Hello,
I plan to buy a 16-35 L II for my 7D and 1D mk III.
1) Which protective filter would fit best (brand and type) ?
2) Is it petal hood really useful ?
Thanks for your advices !
Printable View
Hello,
I plan to buy a 16-35 L II for my 7D and 1D mk III.
1) Which protective filter would fit best (brand and type) ?
2) Is it petal hood really useful ?
Thanks for your advices !
Personally, I like the B&W MRC protective (UV) filters. I have several, and purchased them based on Bryan Carnathan
For the 16-35 II specifically, I like the B+W XS Pro (I *think* that is what it is called). The slim does not work with a normal lens cap and the normal one causes vignetting. (Tthe xs pro causes vignetting, too, and but not as much).
Then again, since you
Jon is correct
I think its this, B+W 82mm UV Haze 010 Filter (Slim)
The Slim is the key word when you buy the filter.
It is a pain to use the little plastic lens cap that comes with it. Every time you take the hood on or off the lens cap is in the way. But as Sean says, use both.
Of course the hood should come with it. So if you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Jon is correct, but you're muddying the waters a bit, Rick. [:P]
B+W offers 4 mounts:
- F-Pro - 5mm thick, has front threads (this one isthe standard mount)
- Slim - 3mm thick, no front threads, has the annoying slip-on cap
- XS-Pro - 3.4mm thick, has front threads, takes a regular cap (or a stacked filter)
- Oversized wide angle - 5mm thick (I think), but oversized - so, for example the 77mm version has 77mm threads but an 82mm filter
Personally, I use an 82mm XS-Pro UV 010 (MRC) on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II.
The supplied petal hood is wide and shallow, so offers little physical protection. It does protect from flare, especially at the 16mm end.
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I muddied the waters and you gave him four options [:P]
This was the one Bryan recommends, and believe it is the one I bought.
[View:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&A=RetrieveSku&IC=BWUVMCS82&Q=]
When I bought it I had read all the reviews about how normal size filters you would get vignetting on the sides. So rather than take a chance I went as thin as possible.
But if the 82mm XS-Pro UV 010 (MRC) is thin enough that there is no vignetting then I like your way John. The slip on cap is very annoying and just not good. If I used my 16-35mm more than once a year now I might go buy one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I'd just like to repeat that for the OP- if you were planing to use your lens more than once a year, you might buy a new filter rather than put up with the cap on the slim you already have.
I agree completely and do not recommend the slim if you can avoid it.. I own two and regret buying both. (I know, fool me twice....). It is okay for occasional use, but for a lens I plan to carry around more than once a year, I would put up with a little more vignetting rather than the slim. I don't mind that the cover looks lame, but it just keeps falling off.
For a 7D or a 1DIII, I wouldn't give the slim any consideration at all. I'd probably get the xs pro just to be safe, but if I could be sure the f-pro would cause no vignetting, I'd get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
True - but Bryan made that recommendation in his review of the 16-35mm L II, and at the time he wrote that review (presumably in 2007 when the lens was released), the XS-Pro mount was not available (B+W introduced it in 2009).
I do not notice any vignetting with the XS-Pro mount on my 16-35 on the 5DII (that is, no additional vignetting - at 16mm on FF, the bare lens does have nearly 3 stops of vignetting).
Jon, in Bryan's review he does indicate that for 1.3x and 1.6x FOVCF bodies, a standard (F-Pro) B+W filter is fine. However, 82mm filters aren't cheap. What if the OP ends up with a FF camera down the line, and then needs a thinner mount to eliminate vignetting? So,Tabazan,I'd recommend the82mm XS-Pro UV filter (MRC and with the new Nano coating that offers improved light transmission). If you're sure you'll never use the lens on FF, you can save $50 and get the F-Pro version.
Thanks a lot.
The loss caused by the filter (thin or classic) is a real debate... I think I will go for a "classic" filter for everyday use, just for protection, and no filter at all for specific work (architecture) which usually is done under safer conditions.