I have seen a lot of back and forth in various threads about people's feelings towards UV Filters. Bryan is definitely a proponent but many forum members are not. Please vote so that we can see who represents the majority.
I have seen a lot of back and forth in various threads about people's feelings towards UV Filters. Bryan is definitely a proponent but many forum members are not. Please vote so that we can see who represents the majority.
I'm just curious how many % of 16-35/2.8L (II) users filter their super wide angle zoom. The filter seems to have the most effect in downgrading IQ in super wide angle lenses. I personally cannot see IQ issue caused by my filters at all until I zoom all the way out on my 16-35/2.8L II to 16mm, I use Hoya Super HMC filters on most of my lenses.
I don't use a filter on my 16-35 II. Are you looking at images shot on you 50D or you 1v?
Every so often I go look at the B+W thin UV filter, but the whole lens cap thing kind of turns me off. The only reason I consider it is because of the shallow hood depth of the 16-35 doesn't offer a lot of protection.
Originally Posted by Keith B
I'm talking about using the lens on my 1V. On my 50D every lens I have is a winner![]
But anyway, even on film printed to 8x10' or scanned to 4000dpi (that's the only handy way to exam my FF sharpness for me), 16-35/2.8L II's corner is somewhat soft to me even stopped down at 16mm. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the filter. I heard a theory somewhere saying that, when a filter is added to a wide angle lens, light coming from a very big angle bends when going through the filter glass before entering the lens itself, and this makes the corners not very well in focus when the image centre is in focus. Is this true though? My observation is that the corner softness does not seem to be the result of anything going out of focus, more like the lens is just not razor sharp to resolve the detail.
The 16-35/2.8L II needs the filter to complete weather seal, so I'll need to protect it that way.
99% of the time I care more about the quality of the photograph than babying the lens. Filters, no matter how many coatings they have, always increase flare and glare. The only question is whether the image quality decrease matters to you or not. Wide angle lenses with the sun in the shot will be ruined more than a low contrast telephoto shot. I have protective filters for all my lenses because I need them when
I'm in conditions with spraying water, etc. and I'm willing to
sacrifice the image quality.
Yeah I have a Canon 77mm UV Filter (probably junk) in my kit for those wet occasions where I'm not terribly worried about IQ. I need to get an 82 for my 16-35 for those occasions too.
I use protection.[]
Because at a wedding for example, or when I shot backstage at a fashion show, people did bump into my lens and I came back with scratches on it that were on the filter, and (thank god) not on the lens, one time quite a deep one. Especially at the end of that wedding when people (strangely enough almost all female) got drunk they just grrrabbed the lens and screamed: take a picture of meeeeee!'
It does degrade image quality, but not much (depends on the focal length, the glass, and the filter thickness and brand though).
To photographers it is sometimes obvious. But to clients: t usually is not. Think as a client sometimes. It's easier.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote