ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

As always you make a pretty good point -- That is kinda --- The Canon 17mm - 40mm 4.0 L lens is a lens that does require a filter to complete it's weather sealing --- I know since at one time this "fool" actually owned one -- Many like the lens & swear by it --- I never got along with it, learned to dislike it & eventually gave it (with of course the attached weather sealing filter) to my Daughter-in-law along with a 5D MkII -- A camera I really enjoyed using --- My reason(s) for eventually disliking the Canon 17-40mm 4.0L were all optical & had nothing to do with it's required weather sealing protecting filter.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Now I am confused Linda... I have a Sony DSC-R1 which IS a bridge camera and the smallest aperture is F/16. Am I missing something ?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I know this is only a tangent, but some of the anti-filter crowd might be disappointed too to learn about the importance of drop-in filters .... below from the guide common to the EF 300 and 400 f/2.8L IS II Canon lenses ... unless, of course, manuals are for sissies ...

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

I did not know that.... Most all of my lenses are older and none that I know of have that feature...That's a rather expensive lens and most users on UHH would not put out that much (my opinion)

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

My 300 F4 has drop in filters as do my mirror lenses

Bill_de Loc: US

I knew people who had this lens and didn't know about the filter, or what the pouch was for.

--

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

LOL, well there you go Maybe best to not label a "class" of camera anymore and concentrate on specific model instead.

Among other features that are not on the bridge cameras I know, your Sony is "First non-SLR (fixed lens digital) camera to feature a large format sensor (APS-C size)."

To the OP - sorry for hijack, I thought I was making an innocent comparison to your point about knowledge, but this sidetrack does illustrate that we don't know what we don't know

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

My old FD400 2.8 has a drop-in similar to this.

Bill_de Loc: US

From Nikon USA indicates that they still use a protective element. They are not removable as far as I know.

Meniscus Protective Glass
NIKKOR's exclusive protective glass for lenses comes attached to the front of fast super-telephoto lenses. Normal flat protective glass lets incoming light reflect off the surface of the image sensor or film, especially under a strong light source such as a spotlight. This then reflects again off the protective glass, resulting in a ghost effect. NIKKOR's curved meniscus glass dramatically reduces this re-reflected light, realizing clearer images with less ghosting.

--

clickety

No problem. My real point has been made, thanks to all.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Tomorrow, when the topic hits the digest, then the know it alls will set you right ...

le boecere

In my dim memory, when I first became a member of this community, I asked one of these "old established" if something he wrote was "irrefutable fact". Oh, my; that did not go over at all well. I seem to remember another "old established" asking me how I could even consider asking such a question. I haven't, since.

(Again, this is "dim memory"; I've not gone back and researched those posts.)

Haydon

I've read in several places where to complete the weather sealing on the Canon 16-35 F2.8L II also requires a filter on the end. You aren't alone in your exploration. As to asking everyone to be accurate is a hopeful task. It's up to you to filter (pun intended) the necessary information in the end.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Seems to me that recounting unnecessarily harsh or rude exchanges that frequently occur on this forum, only serves to stimulate the vitriol and encourage the “offenders” to carry on with more of their bellicose behaviors and childish shenanigans. My suggestion is to simply give them less “ink”- less press!

False and misleading information- some prefer the more euphemistic term “alternative facts”- it's everywhere in life. This makes it imperative that folks do their homework and research to get to the bottom of many issues. I have been immersed in professional photography for a lifetime and have realized long ago that I or anyone else can't possibly know everything about everything so research is required in those unknown areas. I avoid answering questions about or recommending equipment or methodologies that I have no personal knowledge of or actual experience with. I know the gear that I use and are familiar with and have become time-honored trade standards. In professional circles, the scuttlebutt about gear usually comes in via the grapevine and bypasses all the advertising hype and rumors. The good stuff becomes kinda industry standard and the lemons fall by the wayside. For all the rest, I yield to the gear guys and gals (the gear junkies) that are more constantly engaged in equipment changes and upgrades. I generally buy good well crafted stuff, use it to its full potential and keep it until it disintegrates or becomes obsolete. I buy new stuff to replace the dead stuff or to accommodate special requirements of incoming business. I gotta justify the expenses- my lovely wife is the CFO! She says “If you get a GAS attack, take a pill- activated charcoal works in a jiffy”!

So...FILTERS- My perception an experience is that ANYTHING that you place in the light path of the lens can possibly affect performance to some extent so my approach is to minimize the possibility by only using filters when absolutely necessary and only utilize the finest quality filter that are affordable and obtainable.
It is logical that if Canon and other manufacturers have dedicated a filter, of their own make, to a certain model of lens, that filter is considered as a “element” of that lens even if it has no refractive function. It is engineered into the formula and therefor should not have an adverse effect. If a slot is provided somewhere in the barrel or behind the lens, this will preclude additional flare as long as the filter is properly coated.

As for moisture and dust sealing, I would think that for photographers who use their equipment in wet, damp, marine, dust-laden environments, where the is salt-spray, inclement weather and/or hazardous industrial locations, such lens protective systems would be advantageous. I only use my protective filers in such circumstances and conditions where the lenses would be placed in harm's way and subject to damage such as industrial settings were there are airborne contaminants, sawdust, filings, corrosive materials and/or liquid or food (cooking) spatter.

My own filter theory and experience: I used to have drawers full of filters for use with color films. There were necessary for all kinds of color balance and correction. Many professional transparency films were supplied with filter pack recommendations as there were significant manufacturing variations in exact color balance from one emulsion batch to he next In addition to my inventory glass filter, there were the never-ending supply of gelatin filters- ofttimes several were needed (a filter pack) just to obtain accurate color. Nowadays with digital photography and nearly infinite white balance controls and post processing tweaking, all those filter are relegated to the bone pile. All currently I use are circular polarizes, the odd ND filter and a protective filter only when working in industrial environments. I still use a few standard colored filters for black and white contrast and panchromatic separation of tones.

Point is, even in the olden times with all this filters in use, I made commercial and portrait images with great degrees of enlargement with no appreciable loss of quality. I'm talking 30x40 display portraits and food illustration that appear on the Jumbotron at the local NHL stadium- you could count the hairs on people's heads, or count the morsels of pickles in the hot-dog relish! There was no flare and plenty of contrast so long as the filter were of good quality and technique was correctly handled. Theses days, forks who never make large prints and view their images on a computer monitor worry about loss of sharpness and contrast due to filters- kinda silly!

One of he most expensive lenses I ever invested in was the 30mm fish-eye for my Hasselblad film system. The Zeiss filters that were supplied with the lens, screwed in behind the rear element and were engineered into the formula as to focus and quality. That lens is razor sharp- that was made in the 1970s.

Of course, you need to stick with high quality filters made of premium optical glass and manufactured to close tolerances. Is use filers mad by Zeiss, Hoya, B+W, Harrison & Harrison, Tiffen (Cine/Professional), Sing-Ray and have never experienced a significant loss of quality. If I don't need 'em, I don't use 'em!

Some say filters are for swimming pools, fish tanks and coffee makers. To each their own!

PeterBergh

Another lens that is stated by the manufacturer to need a filter to complete weather sealing is Canon 16-35 L F4.

I guess I must be a fool of the very worst description since I bought that lens. Your opinion, like all unjustified statements, makes me very happy; I always consider the source when evaluating an opinion.