tgreenhaw

I always buy a protective filter when I get a new lens. I just bought an RF 16mm f2.8 lens (an incredible lens especially for $300 new).

Whenever I buy slim wide angle filters, the lens cap doesn't like to stay on.

Does anybody have a recommendation for a 43mm filter for an ultra wide angle lens?

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

STATISTICALLY, A LENS HOOD OFFERS MUCH MORE PROTECTION THAN A FILTER AND CANNOT POSSIBLY DEGRADE OPTICAL ACUTANCE .

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

STATISTICALLY, A LENS HOOD OFFERS MUCH MORE PROTECTION THAN A FILTER AND CANNOT POSSIBLY DEGRADE OPTICAL ACUTANCE .

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

Please stop shouting.

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

Unfortunately, this question, operating to protective filters, usually opens up a can of worms and as you can see the "shouting and counter- shouting has l already started.

The anti-filter came to insist that protective filters will introduce flare and negatively affect sharpness. The pro-filter folks remind us of the possibility of serious lens damage due to various impacts, dust, dirt, great fingermarks, etc.

Technically speaking, anything you place in front of you, even the finest optical glass coated filter can possibly cause the aforementioned issues. A poorly crafted filter will certainly do so. I high-quality filter such as the kind made by B+W, Zeiss, and other reputable and time-honoured manufacturers will usually NOT cause any perceptible loss of image quality.

As for wide-angle lenses, B+W has a very comprehensive stock of THIN filters for wide-range lens applications. Also, note that with ultra-wide-angle lenses LENS SHADE usage can be problematic. The shade would have to be very large and shallow to preclude vignetting, the same problem caused by a filter in a thicker rim or made of thicker glass.

So, here is my personal experience. I do quite a bit of industrial photography on construction sites and other hazardous environments. I am dealing with airborne particles, metal filings, sparks for welding, sawdust, etc. I will use the protective filter in those situations. Over the years, 5 filters needed to be replaced because of damage that would have seriously harmed the front element of my lenses. I have made extremely large prints for trade-show booth displays with no loss of quality due to filter usage. You have used the filter on your other lenses, so I assume you are satisfied withte the quality.

A serious head-on impact or dropping a lens on a hard surface will cause serious damage regardless of filter protection. If the filter is shattered, the shards of glass will, in turn, damage the lens. A lens shade may prevent scratch of the lens by heavy brush or sharp twigs in the woods, etc., but again would not abate a head-on impact.

Here is a link to a very comprehensive website. It explains the thin-filter usage and has a handy "vignetting" avoidance tool that will hel you determthe correct filter for your focal length and filter mount diameter.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/UV-and-Clear-Lens-Protection-Filters.aspx

I hope this helps.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I would suggest that you take your camera into your local camera store and put a filter on it. Filters can easily produce vignetting on ultra wide lenses. Vignetting can be managed in postprocessing, but it's another step in getting to the photo you want.

I'm halfway between pro and anti filter positions. Filters definitely protect against blowing sand, salt spray, flying mud, and walking through light brush, but a thin piece of glass is no protection against a real impact. It will produce many small sharp pieces of glass bouncing off the front of your lens.

Filters protect against light stuff. Hoods protect against heavier stuff, although hoods for ultra wide lenses tend to be small and less protective. The best protection would be the lens cap.

Another approach would be to use a longer lens and stitch images when you want ultra wide. But since you already bought the lens, this is probably not what you want to do.

Use a filter AND a hood, and maybe even a cap.

User ID

Never believe dumb assed lemming propaganda posted in ALL CAPS.

Worse yet is the mention "statistically". Thaz essentially the confession of a clueless slinger of toadall BS.

User ID

You very likely dont need a thin filter.
The filter ring is very nicely oversize.

I also checked out Ken Rockwell who, with the lens actually on hand, found standard filters to be no problem.

Keep calm and carry on.

tgreenhaw

Thanks for the Ken Rockwell tip! Just ordered a filter so we'll see :-)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

B+W 43mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano, in stock at B&H.

Ignore those who care less about your equipment than you do.

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

sorry Nick. I have difficulty typing so I just look act the keyboard. If I have inadvertently typed did out in caps, it's too much trouble to erase and redo.

Shakey hands causes stutter fingered typing

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

Just a few common-sense facts to consider.

Depending on the focal length and the design of the filter mount, a standard thickness filter may very well cause vignetting with a wide-angle, especially a super or ultrawide model - there is a reason why they make the thin ones. It might show up n the viewfinder or the camera's screen but you would need a brightly lighted wall to easily see it at a smaller aperture.

If you go to the camera to store and pop on a filter, it may be difficult to detect the extent of the vignette unless the lens is stopped down- it usually will not be readily apparent at wider apertures. At apertures sample that f/8 or f/11 the degree of vignette may be significant.

Trying to correct it in post-processing may be tedious or impossible. If you crop it out, you are defeating the purpose of an ultra-wide-angle lens. Surely you want to be able to use the full frame from edge to edge at times. What else can you do in editing- clone the dark ended out with a healing tool? Not really practical.

It mals no sense to buy a high-quality lens and impair its pr performance or not take advantage of its edge-to-edge angleof view with an inappropriate or poorly crafted filter.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why do you presuppose a vignette from the filter?

Why do you presuppose a visual difference from a 0.3% difference in light transmission of the finest quality B+W 43mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano?

Have you paid attention to any recent test results of various filter brands, such as the work at LensRentals.com on their bog?

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

Have you tested filter options on your own copy of the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM? How do your results correlate with Ken Rockwell's findings for this lens and his recommended filter choices?

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/16mm.htm

Where did you come up with your "facts"? How many of them are accurate in April 2022 for the lens and filter(s) being discussed?

User ID

Below youll see my FF 15mm with its filter which doesnt vignette nor visibly degrade the image.

Hoya standard 52mm on FF 15mm

(Download)