Filters on tele-zooms

[neuroanatomist]

Sigma users have some kinda conspiracies so we have to vote with our wallets for Qanon?

It doesn't really mean anything. There's some conspiracy theory in USA called QAnon.

Perhaps it landed better the first time, when you typed Qanon. I took it for a phonetic spelling of Kwanon, the goddess from whom Canon took their name. Personally, I’ve voted for Kwanon with my wallet in the best way, by voting early and voting often.

 

[EricN]

Perhaps it landed better the first time, when you typed Qanon. I took it for a phonetic spelling of Kwanon, the goddess from whom Canon took their name. Personally, I’ve voted for Kwanon with my wallet in the best way, by voting early and voting often.

that would have been better:
If you feel at peace during a long exposure, you can sometimes hear a compassionate voice whisper "99%" a couple times and then, "there will be third part autofocus lenses. Oh, and don't forget to keep meditation and avoid causing suffering but protective lens filters might not be a good idea - use your own judgement... That is all."
Some people say it was Kwanon, but others say it's a Nike to make us buy more shoes...

 

[justaCanonuser]

Not saying this is the case, but it's possible you had a fake B+W filter. It's been a big problem for B+W and possibly other top brands. I have used the B+W clear filters on numerous lenses and have never noticed a difference with or without. Also using a top level Hoya on my Olympus Telephoto with no noticeable difference in sharpness. I assume you took your shots at the same time under the same atmospheric condition. Maybe the lens makes a difference. Here are shots using an 100-500 zoomed to 500 on my R7 without and with B+W filter. Cell tower about 1/4 mile away. My eye sees no difference. With absolutely no disrespect intended to the poster, my advice to those who read things on the internet and make a decision, it's easy enough to test this yourself. Just make sure you buy your filter from Adorama or B&H, so you get a genuine filter and can return it if it does not work out for you.

View attachment 215331

just hit your reply, and I agree: I never had any sharpness issues with high quality B+W filters on different lenses. I am in the protection filter group, and just yesterday I could sell some used tele lenses for a decent price, because their front lenses were in pristine condition. I also guess that there are a lot cheaply (China?) made fake B+W filters on the market. Here is another argument pro filters: I have one of Canon's older EF 500mm primes which has a built-in protection front glass, and this is a really sharp lens.

 

[justaCanonuser]

One never knows when such "harsh environment" may happen.

My wife got the front filter of her RF 100-400 licked by a random dog in the park just a couple of days ago.

Lol ! My wife got a scratch on the front lens of her Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens when she shot street (carneval), because someone in the wild crowd managed to hit it with tip of his umbrella right through the lens hood which was attached. Since then, she joined me in the "filter on" group.

 

[john1970]

I have always used B&W Mult-coated clear filters for protection on all of my lenses. Protection the front of my lens is important to me. I recently scratched a 400 mm f2.8 lens and replacing the front element cost me $1000.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I have always used B&W Mult-coated clear filters for protection on all of my lenses. Protection the front of my lens is important to me. I recently scratched a 400 mm f2.8 lens and replacing the front element cost me $1000.

This must have been really painful! Is there any chance to mount a protection filter on such a supertele lens? Never used a 400mm f/2.8 ...

 

[john1970]

This must have been really painful! Is there any chance to mount a protection filter on such a supertele lens? Never used a 400mm f/2.8 ...

The largest super tele that takes a filter is the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 which takes a 112 mm filter. It was not the cost that bothered me, but my stupidity that lead to the scratch! Live and learn....

 

[justaCanonuser]

The largest super tele that takes a filter is the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 which takes a 112 mm filter. It was not the cost that bothered me, but my stupidity that lead to the scratch! Live and learn....

When I got my RF 200-800mm past week (finally, ordered it in January), the first thing I did at home was to screw on a 95mm B&W filter. Fortunately it shares the same 95mm front filter thread with my old Tamron 150-600mm G2 that I traded in past week, so I could re-use my expensive filter.

I already presumed that the EF 400mm f/2.8 has no front filter thread, like all fast superteles, but the only ones about which I know that for sure are the 500 and 600mm teles from different generations, because I frequently meet birders with such lenses.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Sense about filters from uncle Rog: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Btw, because he brings an EF 50mm f/1.2 as an example: I have that lens and always a good filter screwed on, what saved its front element already in a crash that cracked the filter. Fortunately, the cracked glass didn't get in contact with the lens, so its front element still is scratch free.

 

[john1970]

When I got my RF 200-800mm past week (finally, ordered it in January), the first thing I did at home was to screw on a 95mm B&W filter. Fortunately it shares the same 95mm front filter thread with my old Tamron 150-600mm G2 that I traded in past week, so I could re-use my expensive filter.

I already presumed that the EF 400mm f/2.8 has no front filter thread, like all fast superteles, but the only ones about which I know that for sure are the 500 and 600mm teles from different generations, because I frequently meet birders with such lenses.

My philosophy is simple: Any lens that can take a filter gets a B+W Multi-coated clear filter in front of it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My philosophy is simple: Any lens that can take a filter gets a B+W Multi-coated clear filter in front of it.

Mine is similar, except that I don’t bother with a filter on inexpensive lenses like the RF28/2.8, M22/2 and M15-45.

 

[AlanF]

My philosophy is simple: Any lens that can take a filter gets a B+W Multi-coated clear filter in front of it.

Marumi is also good.

 

[AlanF]

When I got my RF 200-800mm past week (finally, ordered it in January), the first thing I did at home was to screw on a 95mm B&W filter. Fortunately it shares the same 95mm front filter thread with my old Tamron 150-600mm G2 that I traded in past week, so I could re-use my expensive filter.

I already presumed that the EF 400mm f/2.8 has no front filter thread, like all fast superteles, but the only ones about which I know that for sure are the 500 and 600mm teles from different generations, because I frequently meet birders with such lenses.

The hood won't fit over my Marumi filter attached to the lens. Presumably need a slim one. Same on the RF 800/11.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The hood won't fit over my Marumi filter attached to the lens. Presumably need a slim one. Same on the RF 800/11.

No problem with my filter, a B + W f-pro, its metal frame is slim enough.