Everyone talks about a UV filter to protect the XL1s (e.g. Chris's "Five Essential Items for Your XL1 / XL1S"), but, as Chris states, that can affect shooting at night in some circumstances.

So my question is, what's the deal with clear filters?

I'm planning on getting a protection filter, either Tiffen or Canon, and either clear or UV. Clear filters are cheaper (natch), but I expect them to be of as good quality since I'm going for a quality name.

I'm also thinking of the Tiffen Black Promist ½, but that's another discussion I guess.

For starters, a filter is another piece of glass that can induce reflections and flair. Better glass means less effect, but it still is there.

A second issue is the potential for dust on it. Given the great depth of field, under condition of a small aperture, dust on the filter can be visible in the image. The filter is a substantial distance in front of the outermost focusing element in the lens. The XL1 standard lens already has a protective glass element in front of the VAP.

All said, best to avoid filters unless there is good reason to use one.

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Palomaki : The XL1 standard lens already has a protective glass element in front of the VAP.-->>>

But is it readily serviced without sending it to Canon?

I'm really just looking to protect the lens from damage in the first instance, but in a way that means that any damage can be easilty and quickly repaired by me. A filter can be changed. Can the protective glass element in front of the VAP be changed as easily?

I always use a UV to protect the lens, and I use other filters when the need arises. In a clean studio environment, there's usually no need to protect your lens, other than with a lens hood. Nevertheless, I leave my UV on at all times. One thing to keep in mind, though, UV filters react differently with different cams. Some cams/lenses have the filter threads so far forward that you're going to get "ghosting" and vignetting. Personally I'd rather replace a damaged filter than a damaged lens. Some people are purists, and I can see their point: they don't want any extra glass in front of their lens. This is fine. But what I've found with these people is that they go through lenses a lot more. One gets damaged, no problem. They pop it up on e-bay, suck someone in, and then go and buy a new one.

I never use protective filters. I live in Florida, on the coast, and my equipment is near the beach a lot. In the almost 2 years I've been here, not a single scratch from sand or any other substance. In 20+ in photography, I've never scratched a lens. I do use filters for specific effects, but protection, never.

Thanks all for your thoughts.

My question didn't really relate to whether I should use a filter though. That's been discussed on the board before (e.g. here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=951)). I realise that there are pros and cons of (not) using a filter, and I have decided that a filter is the way for me to go.

My question really realtes to what filter to use. Most people seem to advocate UV, but unless you're after the UV filter effect of such a piece of glass, surely a clear filter would act as adequate protection? A Tiffen clear filter is about half the price of a UV filter and would have the advantage of not interfering with the range of light wavelengths entering the lens.

Again, I realise that a difference of £30 in the cost of a filter is nothing in comparison to the £1600 of lens that it's protecting, but that's £30 that could be spent on something more productive. Particularly if the filter might have to be removed because its optical effect gets in the way of a shot.

Cheers

A UV filter is regarded as a "clear" filter. Surely you don't find a $20 UV filter expensive after buying a Canon XL1?

I've bought several used, minty lenses off e-bay, and spent more for a good filter than for the price of some of these lenses.

UV appears to be the most commonly used "protective" filter and probably a good choice for most purposes. Clear is fine, but if not "coated" a filter could induce more unwanted artifacts like reflections.

Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Surely you don't find a $20 UV filter expensive after buying a Canon XL1?
The Tiffen filters that I'm looking at are about £55 for a UV and £25 for clear, new. Call me stupid, but there are some things I won't buy on e-bay, and glass is one of them.

But, as I mentioned, I don't consider the difference in price to be untoward in comparison with the glass it's protecting. My main concern is that the UV filter may produce artifacts at low light that wouldn't be introduced with clear glass.

I take both yours and Don's point that UV is 'clear' for all intents an purposes. Thanks!

If you're going to put additional glass between the camera optics and subject, would go with the best glass available. You spent thousands on a high performance video system. I think it would be safe to assume that you did so because you're after superior quality images. If that's the case inexpensive filter would not be my first choice. I recommend you buy the best filters available. B +W, Zeiss (Contax), and Heliopan are considered much better performers than the basic Tiffen filters. The manufacturing standards, in my experience and in literature, are much higher.

Thanks Jeff, that's good advice!

I chose Tiffen because they have a good name, or so I thought, and were available from my supplier.

But I will look around for the others that you recommend.

http://www.tiffen.com/She%20Looks%20Like%20Hell%20Ad.htm

An intersting ad.

Yeah, I stumbled upon that one too when I was researching their site!

Just found that B&H supply B&W...even to Switzerland! So I've placed an order for a UV MRC filter and a Kaesemann circular polariser.

Talk to this guy!

Helmut Bajerke
Service Manager
phone: ++49 7364 20 3954
fax: ++49 7364 20 4716
mobile: ++49 1713 02 5969
bajerke@zeiss.de

His prices are fair & plus you get them from the mfg.

Good luck!