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

[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:

• 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.