U.V filter advice,please.

[Jason Claxton]

Im going to be getting a Canon 100-400 lens ,S/H from a friend ,he has gone over to 400 prime(lucky me!), but is keeping hold of the original U.V filter.It seems that a UV filter is fairly essential to protect the lens at least.So can anybody tell me a bit about them in general.
Should I just buy a replacement Canon U.V filter ?,any ideas which one would be best for the 100-400 lens.I'm intending to use this lens mostly for photographing birds.

Thanks Jason.

[Ollie]

Well Jason I will probably be shot down in flames for this reply but I don't use any filters at all on my lens.

I have the Canon 400mm prime and the lens hood extends a good way past the end of the lens giving a fair degree of protection. My opinion is I'm not paying close on a thousand pounds for prime glass then sticking a filter in front of it.

I never use a filter with my Sigma 50-500mm lens either and again in my opinion the lens hood gives enough protection. I may live to regret not using any filters but that's just my outlook on it.

[Boddie]

I have had the 100-400 for over 3 years now and never bothered with a filter. I simply always make sure that the hood is fitted.

I dont have filters on any of my lenses, but always use hoods when available

[Jason Claxton]

Cheers Ollie,what you are saying makes sense to me as well,it doesn't seem to make sense sticking something with poorer optical qualities on the end of the lens.And the hood would help protect it quite a bit in the first place and it would reduce the risk of damage.I shall give some thought though.

Thanks for your help.Jason

[Jason Claxton]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I have had the 100-400 for over 3 years now and never bothered with a filter. I simply always make sure that the hood is fitted.

I dont have filters on any of my lenses, but always use hoods when available

Thanks Boddie,maybe my friend has done me a favour by keeping hold of the U.V filter then..What you and Ollie have said makes sense to me.

Cheers Jason.

[Boddie]

I figure that if I was that unlucky to bash the lens then I would have to claim on my insurance, and I'd get the whole lens overhauled during the repair.

Luckily its never happened though

[JeffH]

I agree with Ollie and Boddie (and also have the Canon 100-400 lens).

If you really want to spend some money on a filter, get yourself something more useful like a round polarizer

Jeff

[RichBrew]

Whilst I advocate the advice of Ollie and Boddie, these filters do have their uses - albeit on limited occasions. I attach a clear filter when shooting by the sea: it's easier to clean spray off the filter than the front element.
Other than that I don't use UV filters at all.

RichBrew

[Jason Claxton]

Cheers Jeff and Richbrew.

It is all new to me,I should have really mentioned a clear filter as well to begin with.Right no U.V filter for me then,I should imagine that a clear filter might have affect on the picture too,not that my pictures are going to be that great for a while anyway.
I've looked up a polarizer.I'll try that later for reducing reflection,improving skies,looks like it is useful,does it help much with plant photography? As at least one internet site mentioned it is useful for that purpose.

Thanks All .Jason

[Ukwildlifeo]

I glad to see not man people are using UV filters/lens protectors. It would have cost £90 to get a 80mm one, so I was reluctant anyway but talking to a friend he agreed that:

1. if you drop your lens face down the lens hood should absorb the blow
2. if any damage occurs it my be inside, the lens protector wont help there
3. if you do drop it on the filter, the bit of plastic its made of is weaker than the lens glass, and if it breaks/shatter the sharp edges and shards might scratch the lens anyway!