Filter on an L lense...yes or no?

[gtirman]

My recently acquired Canon 70-200 L 2.8 [non IS ] lense created a debate around the BBQ the other day.....some said that i shouldnt spoil the great lense with a UV or Circ. polarising filter....the other half mooted that it will enhance the imagesespecially having the circ. polarising.
Leaving the lense protection debate aside....what are your thoughts on this?
At the end of the day....all i want is the best images possible from this great lense.


Cheers for any tips :]

[GeoffWessex]

I don't own anything as wonderful as an L lens, but any extra bits of glass (or plastic) that you put in front of the lens will deteriorate the clarity a little. Of the two filters mentioned, you could skip the UV filter (except, as you say, to protect the lens while it's not in use). The Polarising filter will sometimes be a necessary evil for cutting glare and deepening colour..... but I wouldn't want one on all the time.

[ap4a]

Filters that enhance an aspect of an image, such as a polariser, ND and ND grad, are useful when compensating for environmental conditions. But no filter should just be used arbitrarily, as they all degrade image quality to some extent, and telephotos are affected more severely than wide angles.

When I started out I bought UV filters to protect all of my lenses, now all but one of those filters stay in the cupboard. The only one that doesn't is the one bought for my 17-40, and that only gets used when there's a risk of water spray or sand getting in through the unsealed front element.

[AndyStevens]

I have the 70-200L f/4 and keep a UV on for protection. I also have an adaptor ring so I can use my Cokin P NDs, ND Grads and Polariser on it. I dont have a specific screw-in Polariser for this lens as I wouldnt use it that way - it's either on the tripod with Cokins attached for zooming in on landscapes or it's being handheld for action and I wouldnt want to lose the 2-stops of light which you can with a Polariser.

Cheers
Andy

[matt wilson]

I know you say it's a no brainer but I keep a high quality protection filter (not UV or skylight on my lenses at all times )rather that than a dead front element.

I would defy anyone to tell the difference.

[anglefire]

I used to have a UV for protection on my 24-105 - but decided that it was affecting both IQ and AF accuracy.

I would consider one on my 17-40 as it is not fully sealed without one. But I've used it for 3 days in a very wet Barcelona and had no issues then or since.

As for damaging the front element, I keep the hoods on as much as possible and they take any slight knocks. And the element is very strong. Besides which, its why my gear is insured new for old.

[gtirman]

Thanks heaps for the tips fellas..........going by that i may just buy a UV for protection purposes only [cheapie ] and remove it when taking pics. As i am off to a very dusty/sandy country it may protect entry from the front [crossing fingers ]

cheers to all,
John

[hssutton]

I would never place a filter on my "L" lenses. Luminous landscape provide the reasons.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...m-feb-05.shtml

[greenwing]

Originally Posted by gtirman

Thanks heaps for the tips fellas..........going by that i may just buy a UV for protection purposes only [cheapie ] and remove it when taking pics. As i am off to a very dusty/sandy country it may protect entry from the front [crossing fingers ]

cheers to all,
John

So you screw a filter onto the lens, and take it off when taking pics? What's wrong with the lens cap? In very dusty/sandy country a filter may be a help, but screwing it on & off may not be.

Chris