Warning tiffen filter and Canon ef 24-105

[ivan muller]

Hi,

Would just like to warn every one that the tiffen UV filter actually touches the front element of the canon 24-105f4 L lens. When screwed in tightly it touches the front element and can be seen as a grey very small dot. The image is soft where the filter touches the lens.

Regards, Ivan

[ashley]

Hi,

Would just like to warn every one that the tiffen UV filter actually touches the front element of the canon 24-105f4 L lens. When screwed in tightly it touches the front element and can be seen as a grey very small dot. The image is soft where the filter touches the lens.

Regards, Ivan

Thanks for the warning. I don't have any Tiffen filters but it's good to know in advance.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok... I am confused... which type of Tiffen UV filter does that? All? Or just a slim type? Slim filters have narrower rings, in which case it might be that all slim filters are too close to the front lens surface on 24-105. If that is the case, it might be Canon's design flaw. So, in other words, what is so special about that particular Tiffen UV filter that makes it different from its brethren? Is it even slimmer than other slim filters, or it just has a slimmer filter thread, or perhaps a recessed glass?

I am not disputing what you are describing, just curios why is it so. I once had a rather expensive B+W filter that was constantly falling off from my Canon 28-105, no matter how carefully I would screw it in, until one day it finally fell off on a crowded street, never to be found.

[ivan muller]

Ok... I am confused... which type of Tiffen UV filter does that? All? Or just a slim type? Slim filters have narrower rings, in which case it might be that all slim filters are too close to the front lens surface on 24-105. If that is the case, it might be Canon's design flaw. So, in other words, what is so special about that particular Tiffen UV filter that makes it different from its brethren? Is it even slimmer than other slim filters, or it just has a slimmer filter thread, or perhaps a recessed glass?

I am not disputing what you are describing, just curios why is it so. I once had a rather expensive B+W filter that was constantly falling off from my Canon 28-105, no matter how carefully I would screw it in, until one day it finally fell off on a crowded street, never to be found.

Hi, Not sure which one it was as it was the only range the store had, and I have since returned it. Put on a cokin round filter and it is fine. In fact it was the first time I came across tiffen filters. Here we only get cokin, hoya and kenko. I only noticed it when I saw the out of focus area in the image. At first I though it was a spot on the lens! As you screw in the filter you can actually see the dot grow as it starts to press against the front element!

Regards, Ivan

[DarkPenguin]

Hi, Not sure which one it was as it was the only range the store had, and I have since returned it. Put on a cokin round filter and it is fine. In fact it was the first time I came across tiffen filters. Here we only get cokin, hoya and kenko. I only noticed it when I saw the out of focus area in the image. At first I though it was a spot on the lens! As you screw in the filter you can actually see the dot grow as it starts to press against the front element!

Regards, Ivan

I would skip the UV filter regardless of brand.

[ivan muller]

I would skip the UV filter regardless of brand.

Why?

[Jonathan Wienke]

A UV filter always causes some image degradation, even the most expensive ones. Tiffens aren't that great.

A lens hood usually offers better damage protection for the lens than a filter. The exception to this is ultrawide lenses, which must have short hoods or they will vignette.

[DarkPenguin]

What he said.  It is a big piece of flat glass in front of your lens.  Even if the glass itself doesn't have an impact on the image it tends to increase flare.

Tiffen has a couple of lines of filters.  One line is the sucker, um, inexpensive line and the other is much better and much more expensive.  Of the brands you mentioned I would get the Hoya S-HMC filters.  They are a bitch to clean but they are very good.  Otherwise it is hard to go wrong with B+W filters.

[dwdallam]

That's why  no one in the know buys Tiffen anything. They are just mediocre.

I believe there was a test done on UV filters and image quality, you'll have to Google it, but they image quality was not impacted with quality UV filters, such as Hoya and B&W. Now don't quote me on that, and if anyone can find such a study, please post it.

I do remember doing research on the subject when I started buying pro lenses and I decided to use them. If they had caused image degradation, I would not have used them. At least that is what I remember was the reason for using them as opposed to not using them.

Jonathan is probably technically right when he says anything in the front of the lens will cause degradation, but if you can't see it, really doesn't matter.

As for flare, if you buy a good quality coated UV filters the flare is not increased, as far as my experience goes. A UV filter is on all my lenses, and when I take them off, another filter goes on--I don't stack over them.

Remember that some filter makers make lower end filters and then their really good ones. Such is the case with Hoya. You want the top of the line, which is the HMC series.

I had some time today so I looked up some links testing flare and light pass through of UV filters:
http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uvtest2
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

I tried to use only tests that use a spectrometer or at leas comparable RGB values.

[DarkPenguin]

As for flare, if you buy a good quality coated UV filters the flare is not increased, as far as my experience goes. A UV filter is on all my lenses, and when I take them off, another filter goes on--I don't stack over them.

As far as my experience goes, flare is increased.

[dwdallam]

As far as my experience goes, flare is increased.

Technically you are correct. What I meant is that it is not a quality issue with me. It's so little that it doesn't register with my eye.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ah, yet another great dilemma for the mankind:

"To UV, or not to UV: that is the question!"  

Personally, I UV, but with top-notch filters, as I believe the benefits (physical and dust/water protection) outweigh the cost (slight loss, if any, of contrast, or slight increase of flare under extreme circumstances). I do, however, tend to remove it under controlled  circumstances (i.e., where there is no perceived danger for the lens), or if I need to use another filter (e.g., polarizer).

Dwdallam, thanks for the links.... very illustrating.

[DarkPenguin]

I do, however, tend to remove it under controlled  circumstances (i.e., where there is no perceived danger for the lens), or if I need to use another filter (e.g., polarizer).

I tend to add them when there is danger.

[DarkPenguin]

Thought this was funny...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=33923596

[DarkPenguin]

For the OP the new Hoya HD filters look pretty indestructible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT6wBQR7iqE

Get one of them.