24-70L Should i put a filter on this?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I am seriously thinking about purchasing the 24-70L and i was wondering if i should buy a filter for it and if so what one? I read a lot about filters protecting lenses but i'm always careful with my items and i wonder if a filter is worth the money at £60+.
 
i'd just use the lens hood. if you're going anywhere where there might be mud/sand/salt water splashing on the front element then stick a filter on, but for general walking around a hood should be fine.
 
If you accept that it may cause an insignificant amount of image degradation and you think you'll be shooting in situations where grubby fingers, dirt, dust and rain may get on the lens (even with a lens-hood fitted), then fit a good-quality UV or 'Protection' filter - makes no real difference which, though UV filters are more common.
Hoya make some of the best, either the HMC or Pro-1 range.

If you're working in a studio, or shooting bright lights at night, take it off.

I've been on fairly benign shoots that I thought i'd be 'safe' on only to find all manner of shi'te stck to the filter: ice-cream, water splashes where there was no rain, finger-prints, you name it...
Once in a studio shoot I got small droplets of baby-oil and face-powder on one lens from the make-up artist being too enthusiastic...

You never know...
 
Last edited:
I've got 24-105mm and put a Kenko UV filter on it and would recommend it for those moment you can't predict.
 
Age old question. There's two main reasons to put a filter on, excluding the usage of polarizers or ND filters - complete the weather sealing, and protect the front glass.

Now, if you normally shoot under "normal" conditions and you're using the hood, there's a good chance you don't really need a filter on. If you do decide to put one on, use either a UV filter or a Skylight (clear) filter, preferably multi-coated.

As for money, putting a £60 filter infront of a £1k lens to keep it's value is not really that big of a deal.
 
I was just wondering as i will have the lens insured with the rest of my gear so if something managed to creep into it and it had to be repaired then i'm sure the insurance would cover it. I feel like maybe the filter and insurance is paying twice for the same thing. Both are designed to protect the lens.
 
Only you can decide if it's worth it, or needed. The reasons mentioned above are usually why people put them on. If you don't you need it for those reasons, then don't use one.

I usually have a Protection filter on my 24-70, even though I named it Skylight above; I always get confused by the names. But I take it off during certain conditions, such as shooting at night with lots of point lights going on, etc. It's not necessarily needed, but it gives me that extra comfort to be able to bang the lens around. The possible image degradation doesn't bother me as I very rarely view a image pixel-by-pixel.
 
scottduffy said:
I was just wondering as i will have the lens insured with the rest of my gear so if something managed to creep into it and it had to be repaired then i'm sure the insurance would cover it. I feel like maybe the filter and insurance is paying twice for the same thing. Both are designed to protect the lens.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've answered your own question.

If you get a load of gunk on the filter or something hits it hard enough to scratch it, you can keep shooting.

If the same thing happens to the lens you can't.

It's your lens - you decide which is more important.

I'm still using lenses which are 15 years old which have only had the front elements touched maybe once or twice in their lives because I always have filters attached. How many filters have I put on them in that time? No idea...lots...
My 17-35 went through five UV filters in six months in Iraq (more than most people put their kit through, I admit). Apart from having a lot less paint than when it was new, that lens is optically as pristine as the day it was bought.

If I get something stuck to a lens I just wipe it off with whatever's handy, cloth, tea-towel, t-shirt, dirty hanky, whatever. It's just the filter I'm wiping - if it gets trashed in 6 months, so what?
 
If the 24-70 is one of those lenses that needs a filter to complete the weather sealing, I'd go for it.
 
scottduffy said:
I am seriously thinking about purchasing the 24-70L and i was wondering if i should buy a filter for it and if so what one? I read a lot about filters protecting lenses but i'm always careful with my items and i wonder if a filter is worth the money at £60+.
Click to expand...

The very thought of putting a horrible filter in front of that wonderful lens makes me want to weep :'(

Unless you're a squaddy bashing around a war zone, don't. Just don't. If you want one for protection, by all means get a top end Hoya. But keep it in your pocket until you need it. I could tell you why, but life is too short. Search my user name and that Arkady chap.

Hi Rob! :D
 
trencheel303 said:
If the 24-70 is one of those lenses that needs a filter to complete the weather sealing, I'd go for it.
Click to expand...

I can't remember if the manual recommended one for completing the weather seal (it did for 24-105). But I seem to recall that the weather resistant Canon zoom lenses doesn't have sealed glass ends, thus a filter would be needed to complete the seal.

But I could just have dreamt that as an excuse to put mine on.
 
I think you are right. I know for a certain that the 17-40 needs one - because the front end actually moves back and forth inside the barrel. i think it is the case for a lot of Canon zooms.
 
gnom said:
Age old question. There's two main reasons to put a filter on, excluding the usage of polarizers or ND filters - complete the weather sealing, and protect the front glass.

Now, if you normally shoot under "normal" conditions and you're using the hood, there's a good chance you don't really need a filter on. If you do decide to put one on, use either a UV filter or a Skylight (clear) filter, preferably multi-coated.

As for money, putting a £60 filter infront of a £1k lens to keep it's value is not really that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

I have several lens each over 1k , i fit filters and always have the same question , and answer

Why fit a cheep bit of glass on a 1k lens .. To protect it is the answer , But i'm still not sure if i should use them and take a chance .. :shrug:

iT'S THE WHAT IF ...

Rog :thumbs:
 
I don't find filters degrade the image. I have a Hoya Pro-1 Digital on mine at all times.

70mm, F/2.8 (wide open), this is on a ZOOM lens!!!

(I have lowered the clarity in LR by -23 as well)



100%



You can see ME in this reflection !

 
Raymond Lin said:
I don't find filters degrade the image. I have a Hoya Pro-1 Digital on mine at all times.

70mm, F/2.8 (wide open), this is on a ZOOM lens!!!

(I have lowered the clarity in LR by -23 as well)

<snip>
Click to expand...

Raymond, if you'd taken the filter off, you might have been able to see more detail in that beautiful but rather flarey looking diamond.

See this thread, and in particular check the comparison pictures in post #22 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=212297
 
Richard, I was already swaying toward not putting one on and you've now made my mind up. If you could leave your address at the bottom of this thread so I can send the repair bill to you when there is all sorts of junk in the lens I would really appreciate it. :thumbs:
 
scottduffy said:
Richard, I was already swaying toward not putting one on and you've now made my mind up. If you could leave your address at the bottom of this thread so I can send the repair bill to you when there is all sorts of junk in the lens I would really appreciate it. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hoorah! Victory for common sense! :)

You should still get a filter, but just keep it in the bag until you need it. Then there is no need for any repair bills, or spoiled images :thumbs:
 
I don't use one on mine (anymore). The hood is deep enough, especially when the element is retracted, so when walking around I have got into the habit of turning it to 70mm so the hood provides the most protection.
I would use a filter if not using the hood, for example if I wanted a smaller looking lens for any occasion.
 
I do get junk on my filter on that lens. I hate cleaning the filter, but I would hate cleaning the lens much more. IQ is more affected by your skill rather than a filter - its 99.99% invisible. I think this answers your question.
 
I have had a filter on my 24-70L from new, its a Hoya pro1
Not sure if it degrades the image and I really don't care as i'm happy with what comes out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top