clickety

In response to drmax's 10/03/18 question about using filers for protection I responded the following on10/4/18:
"clickety wrote: Another "protection" point to consider is with the some of Canon L series a filter is an integral part of and completes the weatherproofing seal."

To which rmorrison1116 sarcastically replied:
Quote"Huh? Where did you hear that, from the guy who sells protective filters? I have over a dozen Canon L series lenses and not a single protective filter amongst them and I've never had any problems or need for a protective filter."End Quote.

I knew I had read what I said on more than one occasion. Today in reading a lens review on TheDigitalPicture.com site I found another reference.

In reviewing the EF 50mm F1.2L USM, Brian Carnathan writes:
Quote"The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens adds a feature lacking on the 85 L II but common on Canon's newer L series lenses - weather sealing. I should say weather-sealing-capable because a filter is required to complete the factory weather sealing. The front lens elements that extend/retract inside the lens barrel require a 72mm filter to complete their sealing. The filter attaches to the outer lens barrel - and does not rotate or extend."End Quote.

So this filter 'requirement obviously applies to more than one lens. I had provided correct information!

But my real point is, bellicose replies by 'old established' members often spreads or perpetuates false information. Times and technology advance and old cliches may no longer apply.

To all members, ifyou wish to wear the mantle of implied expertise, you must accept the responsibility of checking the accuracy of responses and the civility of presenting them.
Thank you.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Good luck with that.

The unmoderated* sections of UHH have trolls, bullies, meanies, troll hunters, tellers of Great Truths...and then there's all the rest of us who need no reminders.

*main forum has a "report issue" function for the very worst of the worst behavior. However, for Admin to move topics to The Attic usually requires them to contain obscenities.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The real question is not your beef over an answer but...

WHY THE HELL DOES ONE HAS TO ADD A FILTER TO COMPLETE THE DEFICIENT WEATHER SEALING OF A LENS???

Anybody purchasing such a lens is a fool.

clickety

Your point has validity. But my issue was correcting a response not challenging a lens design. It is an excellent lens and many will buy it for the results, i.e. personal choice.

I feel there are too many who try to impress instead of teach and they are not going to be limited by 'FACTS'.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

"Since the front element of this lens moves when zooming, you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust- and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water resistant ". This is from the manual of the 16-35 F4 L. Not Aye or Nay; just the facts....

clickety

Thank you Linda, The personalities are what they are. I find them less troubling than perpetuating falsehoods.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Alas, you have to go back to the user manual for the 50 f/1.2L to find reference to completion of the water- & dust-resistance system via a filter. The 50L dates to 2007 and even though most of the manuals are just the same text over and over with small updates for unique lenses, I couldn't find the highlighted text in more recent releases. (I didn't read / scan every manual ...)

What is probably more relevant, at least those willing to learn from fact-based analysis rather than tales of old wives about the motivations of sales people, is this analysis from 2017:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Be sure to reach the Conclusion section from Roger Cicala and team at LensRentals as well as following the embedded link to the related post he did in May 2017 that started his updated investigation of filters.

clickety

To CHG CANON: I for one so appreciate your factual, reasoned responses.

I guess it's the nature of forum threads, but rmorrison's incorrect response stood as fact for days because others were too busy spouting what they did with their equipment. Thus, the OP was possibly making decisions on incomplete or false data.

That's the concern I have.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Filters have various levels of quality, so to lump them all together is invalid. Beyond that, each individual is entitled to their own opinion of what is most important to their own images and care of their own equipment. But, pushing false claims accomplishes little.

If you are Superman and can see the difference of a 1% transmission of light and that is more important than the glass front of your $$$$ lens, your life's work is probably wasted in ranting on internet forums. And only in movies can Superman save the world ...

clickety

Thank you

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Clickety, I understand your concern, and I'm sure everyone who has a particular area of "expertise" notices how widespread this issue is.

For example, here's one of mine: an OP with a bridge camera will receive advice about stopping down to f/16 or f/22, but a bridge camera's smallest aperture is f/8 (one of the newest may go to f/11). Depth of field discussion should always take into consideration the type of camera, but often doesn't.

Misinformation combined with rude and condescending definitely can grate on one's nerves

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Don't neglect the fact that this applies to certain Canon lenses, not all brands and not all Canon lenses. Thus it is an exception, not a rule......Bottom line, Do as you wish....

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Interesting point and thanks for enlightening me, I had no idea, and like most people I’d guess, the lens arrives, you fit it and try it out!

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Indeed! "Caveat Emptor" is always in effect on the forums. Everything from knowledgable & helpful all the way to the mindless blowhard & rude... Celebrate the former and pity the latter.

Bill_de Loc: US

I guess Canon wasn't the only one who thought a removeable filter wasn't a bad idea. My Nikon 200 - 400 F/4.0 VR came with the filter already attached, and a pouch to put it in for those occasions you may want to remove it. Some lenses have a flat glass protective element to protect the front lens element. The idea is a scratched flat glass is a lot cheaper to replace if it gets scratched.


If these lens manufacturers had been UHH members they would have known better.

--