Customer Reviews

Canon 72mm UV Haze Filter

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I never take my UV filter off of my lens unless I am going to immediately put on a different filter. There are basically two camps out there, those that feel you should always use a UV filter to protect your lens from dirt and scratches and those that feel it is a waste of time and only degrades your image. Well, I tried going without one for awhile and then dirt started to build up on the front element of my very expense lens. And although you can clean the front element of a lens, I feel much, much safer wiping my comparatively cheap UV filter time and time again rather than chancing any actual lens damage. I think for the nearly unquantifiable loss in image quality you may suffer by having a UV filter on, it is well worth the extra piece of mind it gives me.

I received this filter, took it out of the case, cleaned it and then put it on the camera lens. The next time I went to clean it I noticed that the glass seemed loose so I removed it from the lens to take a look. The glass literally fell out of the ring. The only thing that holds it in place is a thin strip of metal wrapped on the inside of the ring with a little bend in it to give tension to the glass. From looking at it, it seems that it was originally glued in place. While I'm able to get it back on the lens to use it until a replacement arrives (of another brand) I could not believe how badly this filter held up. 90% of the time that it was on the lens, it was in a camera bag and it was never dropped or mistreated. You'd think something with Canon's name on it would be put together in a more secure way than a thin metal O-ring type thing that's glued in place with a spot of glue. Wouldn't buy this again or recommend it, especially when you can get a B+W or Hoya for nearly the same price.

I bought one of these around the time I got my Canon 40D kit with 28-135mm lens. I've had this filter on since day one, but always thought the lens was a little soft in terms of IQ, so I did a test with/without the filter. The results were night and day. I can't tell if it filtering any UV rays, but it certainly filters sharpness dramatically. Skip this one and go for the Hoya.

I got this filter based on the reviews here to protect my Nikkor 18-200. I feel disappointed with this filter for 2 reasons: (1) it came with light scratches (obviously used), (2) it produces internal reflections (it is not multicoated) -- when pointed at the light, a strong flare develops. (From what I read about coatings, multicoated filters produce a green reflection of a light source, filters with few coatings produce a faint reflection and uncoated filters have a bright reflection -- this filter shows a pretty distinct reflection that is not green). I returned this filter and got a Hoya 72mm UV HMC filter. Much better. Occasional flare can be seen (I guess this is the price of protecting your lens), but it is *significantly* better than the Canon filter. My recommendation is to get the Hoya filter for a little more - it is worth it. (One drawback of the Hoya was it was much more difficult to screw onto the lens.) Happy picture taking.

If you want a NICE UV/Haze filter, you'll need to spend some money. This $17 filter is not worth the materials used to build it. Sadly, the only Canon UV/Haze filter that's ever proved to be a winner is the L39 Sharp Cut versions which I've only seen in 77mm. This is junk.

This filter did its job admirably for nine months. After that time, I noticed some film/gunk buildup on the front of it. I took the filter off the lens and used distilled water and a cloth to clean it using very light pressure.

After cleaning it, there were tiny scratches all over the surface of the filter. So cleaning the filter ruined it.

I'll try buying the Hoya filter and see if that holds up better. A product like this certainly shouldn't be scratched into unusabilty the first time you clean it.

Buy this filter, it is cheap, and keep it on all the time. It protects your lens from dust and dirt. If you do not have an L-series lens that is sealed this will protect your investment.

I purchased this filter to protect my 35mm f/1.4L. This filter, depending on the conditions, reflects a horrendous amount of light. I bought a b + w multi-coated uv filter for my 16-35mm f/2.8L. It costs a lot more but it is well worth it. I had to try pretty hard to get it to reflect any light and when it did it was hardly noticeable. I'll be replacing my canon filter with a b + w.

It's been said many times, but you need to protect your lens. I haven't noticed any loss in image quality with this filter and whether you have purchased an entry level lens or an L-series you still need to get a UV filter. It will protect the glass from scratches and when it comes time to clean off smudges you won't have to touch the highly priced lens, just the filter. This filter has the Canon name and that means quality.

First of all, I'm a big fan of buying a UV filter for your lenses. Not only does it cut down on the UV light and makes the colors pop, but it's also insurance against damage to the front element to the lens. The last thing I want to do on a $1000 lens is have to worry about the front getting scratched or damaged, so I'd rather buy a $15-$40 piece of glass to protect it and consider it disposable.

Having said that, with filters in general, you tend to get what you pay for. You might want to consider something more expensive like a Hoya or Tiffen. They're better constructed and don't feel as flimsy as the Canon UV filters.

I'd recommend picking it up - if you get a good copy, then keep it. But if you get one and it sucks (your images seem soft or the UV filter itself seems poorly constructed), then invest an extra few dollars in a better filter. I mean, you've already dropped $500+ on a lens, so what's a few extra dollars? (as the guy at the camera store tells me all the time...)