New lens

D

Daz123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Name
mr d knowles
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi iv just got a new canon 70-200 f2.8 mk iii lens I need a 77mm lens protector need help on which one as I don't want to get one that affects the quality of the lens thanks Darren 123
 
This is one of the areas where you do get what you pay for. Be prepared to pay around £100 - £120 and take your pick from what's available.
 
Daz123 said:
Hi iv just got a new canon 70-200 f2.8 mk iii lens I need a 77mm lens protector need help on which one as I don't want to get one that affects the quality of the lens thanks Darren 123
Click to expand...
Hi, Sorry don.t have what you want but wonder why you would put a filter that maybe costs £50-£100 on a glass that has been made to perfection to give you the best results in your photography and costs £1000's to buy, the lens hood is your best friend. JMO.
Russ.
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, Sorry don.t have what you want but wonder why you would put a filter that maybe costs £50-£100 on a glass that has been made to perfection to give you the best results in your photography and costs £1000's to buy, the lens hood is your best friend. JMO.
Russ.
Click to expand...
IMHO
To only be used where protection is a factor.

I have filters for all my expensive lenses, but they’re only ever used at the beach, shooting rallying etc.

The usual recommendation is Hoya multi coated. There are though some decent lower cost options.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your advice I don't want it to affect the images just think ats a lot of money to damage it
 
I used cheap filters for lens protection for years and I never saw any real adverse effects. One possible effect which springs to mind is the possibility of reflections if there's a light source in the frame.

Other than that... and apart from as phil mentions the beach or similar... for protection how about a hood rather than a filter?
 
Last edited:
Just tested my newly acquired mkii with Hoya fusion protector. There is no visual difference on 5ds and that says a lot. Hoya hd would be also fine

Lens originally came with cheap non coated UV and it was so bad I thought the lens was literally f***ed until I binned that piece of crap
 
Last edited:
Make sure you use a lens hood, apart from reducing flare and contrast reduction, it probably will give you more physical protection than a filter. I have the same 70-200mm lens but never use any filters. I do own a clear filter which I could use and would do so if in any potentially risky situation (not arisen yet). The fact is in over 40 years of using a SLR/DSLR, I have never damaged or scratched a lens. I assume that those who do must be very careless. I did not even use when when attending a Motocross event as, if a flying stone struck the front, it would go straight through a filter (they are very delicate) and the shards of glass might scratch the front element. What I actually did, was to take all my shots from in front of the riders or from the side which is what I wanted anyway so little chance of flying debris.

Dave
 
woof woof said:
I used cheap filters for lens protection for years and I never saw any real adverse effects. One possible effect which springs to mind is the possibility of reflections if there's a light source in the frame.

Other than that... and apart from as phil mentions the beach or similar... for protection how about a hood rather than a filter?
Click to expand...
Above 50-70mm you will see progressively more effects and by 200-400mm it can look disastrous
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Above 50-70mm you will see progressively more effects and by 200-400mm it can look disastrous
Click to expand...

I think it all depends.

I used filters on 50 and 85mm f1.4 lenses and my good old Sigma 28-300mm and saw very few issues, maybe none that I can remember and I am an ocd affected nit picker. In years of use (I had DSLR's for I guess over 10 years) I never saw anything disastrous or shot ruining. The only issue I was aware of but can't remember actually running into was reflection with lights in the frame.

Maybe I was just lucky with the quality of the filters.

I haven't bothered with them for years now.
 
Last edited:
I like to see things simply.

Protect your lens with a hood and definitely improve image quality.

Protect your lens with a filter and risk inferior image quality

To me the hood is a no brainer, and a filter is only worthwhile when there’s risk of damage even with a hood.
 
This is always difficult discussion. I only use a where it’s really necessary and always use a lens hood.

I have a couple of Hoya HD Protector (£40 on Amazon) that I use where protection from flying debris, sand etc or risk of anything coming into contact with the front element (ie remotely using a camera with wide angle lens for wildlife). I’ve seen a video of Hoya dropping metal ball bearings onto the HD Protecter filter and they bounced off without damaging or cracking the glass.

I’ve cleaned off mud splattered on the front of a 300mm f2.8 where a wet muddy dog kicked the lens hood. I’d laid it down whilst I was photographing with another lens and a dog ran past accidentally kicking the front of the lens hood. It was not fun trying to gently clean wet mud off the front of such an expensive lens. Cleaning a removable filter is much easier.

Don’t certain manufacturers need a front filter adding to complete the water/dust proof nature of some lenses?
 
Mintchocs said:
I recommend Hoya HD filters.
Click to expand...
Genuine Hoya HD I would add. There are a lot of fakes on ebay, Aliexpress and potentially even Amazon. Coatings are very different to non-existent, rim material is different (light alu, with rougher finish), the back of the box is different (writings more generic, may mention cpl for some illegible reason). I don't expect them to be good; I have one but never tested. I might just for fun.
With BW filters chances are even worse. It's OK when you know what you are looking for and are not afraid to stand up for your rights with the shopping platform.
 
Is it possible for the effect a filter has on a lens to vary from lens to lens?

I have a Panasonic 100-300 which I found wasn't as sharp as expected. Removed the UV filter (Hoya, genuine) and the difference was amazing. Tried it several times, and the difference was repeatable.
The same filter I had been using on a Canon 18-135, and it was exceptionally sharp.
I find it hard to believe that it can make such a difference to one lens but not to another.

I also have the PL 100-400, with an inexpensive UV filter on it, and the filter makes no difference on or off.

I have never been able to see a difference on an UV filter before, and usually buy several at a time of the two most common sizes we have (52 and 58) and more of one on other sizes, except the Hoya and one K&F which I bought from a reputable retailer when I wanted them in a hurry,
 
andrewc said:
I don’t subscribe to the filter for protection school of thought, but I always use a lens hood.
Click to expand...
Yep with Andrew 100% lens hood is all you need
 
Sangoma said:
Is it possible for the effect a filter has on a lens to vary from lens to lens?
Click to expand...
It is an interesting question, and might be indeed related to the optical formula. In Canon land 400mm f/5.6 won't take a filter at all, and 70-200 f/2.8 II wants really good ones. f/4 I believe is the same. And that just sharpness shooting away from light. The other way round they all add anywhere between moderate to horrendous amount of extra flare.
 
David Stallard said:
Yep with Andrew 100% lens hood is all you need
Click to expand...
Lens hood never saved my mates 70-200 front element from a rally car throwing a stone.

I use lens hoods always, and filters when there's a risk of damage to the front element, that risk cant be mitigated with a hood, and ignoring that can be an expensive mistake.
 
Not sure that a filter would be much protection against a stone thrown up by a rally car.
 
Nod said:
Not sure that a filter would be much protection against a stone thrown up by a rally car.
Click to expand...
I got one stuck to a screw in lens hood and decided it would be easier to smash the filter with a hammer than try and unscrew them. It took some smashing. I recon a filter would do the job.
 
Nod said:
Not sure that a filter would be much protection against a stone thrown up by a rally car.
Click to expand...
I reckon it’d have taken the ding rather than the front element. Obviously it wasn’t a large stone, as it landed inside the lens hood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top