Looking to buy Canon 17-55 2.8 IS + Which UV Filter?

Ksanti said:
I'm clumsy, occasionally I'll stick a finger on the front element thinking I'm taking the lens cap off, it happens. Better I prod a filter than the front element.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's better you touch the front element than the filter itself - once you get grease on a filter it's nigh-on impossible to get rid of it all.

Front elements seem to be much easier to clean, believe it or not.
 
Well I have just managed to pick up a second hand 17-55 with both a lens hood and UV filter so I will do some testing once it arrives. If it produces any negative effect to image quality I will not use it but if it doesn't harm image quality by any noticeable amount I will probably keep it on as I do quite a bit of sports photography and it wouldn't hurt :p
 
Ksanti said:
Well done. Have a cookie. Not everyone is shooting in situations where there's no risk of anything getting on the front element.

The one lens that I don't use a filter on is my Tamron 90mm as that's insanely recessed, because a) I don't trust my friends with my camera but don't want to be really tight and *ahem* about not letting people touch my gear b) much better safe than sorry particularly when shooting events in London c) if you get a little stone on the front element it can be very tricky to get it off without gouging out a nasty line in the front element.

While I understand plenty might not need filters, they're not expensive and save the effort of cleaning the whole time. They have no real effect on IQ when you buy decent ones so I see no reason not to have them unless you have an absolutely massive range of lenses or loads where they're impractically big i.e. super telephotos. I'm clumsy, occasionally I'll stick a finger on the front element thinking I'm taking the lens cap off, it happens. Better I prod a filter than the front element.
Click to expand...

All very well using the cost argument. However a decent UV filter will cost you around £70 for an expensive lens (most have 67-77mm rings). To get the front element replaced is not going to cost you much more...

On the other hand when there is an extreme risk of damage to the front element (photographing rallying etc) or when the front element may get dirty and you need it to be "cleanable" very quickly (pouring with rain/sea spray/mud and you replace the filter or just remove it when dirty) it makes sense. In reality however 99% of the photographic population just aren't going to be in that situation.

IMO it's better off just buying a decent CPL and leaving that on the lens, just taking it off when it isn't needed. At least it actually does something useful while "protecting" your lens.
 
Ksanti said:
Well done. Have a cookie. Not everyone is shooting in situations where there's no risk of anything getting on the front element.

The one lens that I don't use a filter on is my Tamron 90mm as that's insanely recessed, because a) I don't trust my friends with my camera but don't want to be really tight and *ahem* about not letting people touch my gear b) much better safe than sorry particularly when shooting events in London c) if you get a little stone on the front element it can be very tricky to get it off without gouging out a nasty line in the front element.

While I understand plenty might not need filters, they're not expensive and save the effort of cleaning the whole time. They have no real effect on IQ when you buy decent ones so I see no reason not to have them unless you have an absolutely massive range of lenses or loads where they're impractically big i.e. super telephotos. I'm clumsy, occasionally I'll stick a finger on the front element thinking I'm taking the lens cap off, it happens. Better I prod a filter than the front element.
Click to expand...

Decent filters are the same price as it is to send a lens off to CPS which charge a flat fee to fix lenses IIRC. Plus i've seen examples of the broken glass from a filter scratching the lens anyway.

I would understand if you shoot something like rallying, but having shot in all conditions a non-weather sealed lens can handle (probably pushed my luck in a few occasions too), plus in all those conditions you've listed (drunk friends, London and actually, equestrian sports) I still do not see the point for the OP to have a UV filter.

Funnily enough, lens hoods stop you getting fingers on the lens :P
 
Last edited:
glitch said:
Actually, it's better you touch the front element than the filter itself - once you get grease on a filter it's nigh-on impossible to get rid of it all.

Front elements seem to be much easier to clean, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

This is the reason I stopped using filters. Well, to be fair the first filter I bought. I dropped it in long grass, and when I picked it up it I prodded it with my finger. To this day I have not found anything that takes longer to clean.

When I went to Llandudno, I got sand all over my 60D and my siggy 50mm, and that took less time to clean, and I was quite drunk :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom