# Which filter for 70-200 2.8?



## ndredsox (Feb 15, 2009)

Picked up my first L today and all they had in 77mm filters were Tiffen.  Looking for a protector filter that will not degrade the quality glass.  What are you using or recommend for this lens?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 15, 2009)

Just use the lens hood. 

Unless you're in the crappiest of conditions all the time, IMO UV filters are useless. Why would you want to spend money to make your lens look worse?

Protection? sure, but i've never seen people bring broken lenses where a UV filter would have saved it. A lens hood would have, but if you knock your lens on something hard enough to break the UV filter, then you've broken something else too.

Now if you're shooting in iraq, then yeah. Get a tiffin filter so you could wash it under a sink because the sand in the air would just wipe out the coating on the front element.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 15, 2009)

To counter I find them indispensable, and a decent filter makes zero noticeable difference. I have had my lens saved quite well by a UV filter, once smashed against a rock and once with a drink spilt into it.

As always buy quality. If you are looking at Hoya brand then the only filter worth getting is their HSMC line. Same with Kenko, Pro or bust. Lesser filters produce notable image quality issues.


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2009)

UV filters are from the past when lenses did not have UV coatings - today most new lenses have UV coatings on the inside glass already -  so save some money and go for a clear glass filter. Note that you should still buy a serious and top brand clear glass filter (no sense in having a great lens with good optics and then put bad optics infront). Hoya and B+W are good solid filter makers


----------



## ndredsox (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks guys!


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Feb 15, 2009)

A 77mm B+W MRC filter (#66070252, #66-1001705, etc.) will set you back $100-$125.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 15, 2009)

JustAnEngineer said:


> A 77mm B+W MRC filter (#66070252, #66-1001705, etc.) will set you back $100-$125.


You could buy a 50mm f/1.8 for that!


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Feb 15, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> You could buy a 50mm f/1.8 for that!


 And a 52mm B+W MRC filter for the 50mm f/1.8 would set you back $45-50.  With an $85 lens, you might choose just to use a $6 Tiffen filter or a $20 multi-coated filter from a cheaper brand than B+W.  The multi-coated filters have noticeably less flare/reflection than the single-coated ones.  The OP asked for a filter that would not degrade the optical quality of his $1200 or $1700 lens.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 15, 2009)

I've told this story a couple times here, but I will tell it again.

A couple years ago, I bought a new 70-200 2.8 VR. Dropped $1700 on the puppy with shipping and taxes.

First thing I did was put a UV filter on it (a very good, expensive B&W UV filter I might add).

Went to a zoo to shoot some shots with my brand spanking new just out of the box 70-200 VR, slapped the lens hood on and started walking around. 

When I got to the zebras, one bit another one on the ass, and the one that got bit jumped and stomped, right in a big puddle of mud.

Pfwap! 

Mud came flying and I got splattered.

Sure enough, one big semi-solid glob of mud slammed into my lens right exactly dead center (lens hood and all). The splotch of rock filled muck was about two inches around, nearly filling up the filter, and it hit DEAD center with a sickening "pop" sound.

I tell you what... I would have absolutely puked on the spot had that gritty, grimy, zebra peed-in rocky mud been slobbered all over the front of my brand new $1700 lens instead of some $100 filter.

I come from a sports news background, where I have had my camera covered in all kinds of stuff including spit, blood, rain and an ocean of sweat from some athlete running into me.

Twice I have had lens filters broken in my career while I was shooting, and both times no damage was done to the front elements or the threads.

If you do nothing with your camera except for very carefully carry it in a case from one shot to another & you don't take a lot of action photos or photos in the wet, mud and muck, then you need one less.

Me? I always, always, always shoot with a filter. Always.

I use the best one I can find (B&W).


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 15, 2009)

I use a B+W on mine. It was the best performing one.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Feb 15, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Just use the lens hood.
> 
> Unless you're in the crappiest of conditions all the time, IMO UV filters are useless. Why would you want to spend money to make your lens look worse?
> 
> ...




Actually my dad's old film camera, he dropped his camera and the filter cracked and some pieces broke, the actual filter lens didnt break...


----------



## Joves (Feb 15, 2009)

I know you are using Canon glass but, really the Nikon Clear is one of the best for protection. I never really looked to see if B&W, Hoya make clears as well so you might look at them as well and, see if they do.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 16, 2009)

Overread said:


> UV filters are from the past when lenses did not have UV coatings - today most new lenses have UV coatings on the inside glass already -  so save some money and go for a clear glass filter.



Actually half true. Modern coatings on lenses do not block UV nor are they expected to. But camera sensors are not sensitive to UV light like say film was. In the past a UV filter was a necessity for snow and sometimes sand shooting, but yes the UV coating itself is a thing of the past.

That said UV filters are optically clear, more widely available, and cheaper (when looking at midlevel filters) on average which is why they come recommended time and time again.



Joves said:


> the Nikon Clear is one of the best for protection..



From what I've heard it's also very overpriced for what essentially is a sheet of glass with rather generic antiglare coating.


----------

