Customer Reviews

Canon 77mm UV Haze

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

This is a good, affordable UV filter for protecting your expensive lenses. I leave it on my lens all the time. This particular filter (L-39 Sharp Cut) is especially good for wide angle lenses (< 24mm focal length), because of its ultrathin profile, which prevents vignetting. I have used regular filters on wide angle lenses, with very bad results. Although this filter is NOT multi-coated, I have not found it to be a big deal in the pictures I've taken. Multi-coated UV filters can cost 2x or 3x the price of this one, which I don't think is worthwhile. All in all, I recommend this filter for Canon or non-Canon lenses.

I'm sure there are those who'd wax philosophical over the subject of filters and how one brand is "much better" than another, but for my Canon EF-S 10-22mm on a 20D, I figure Canon would be fairly good at making a filter that they're willing to have branded "Canon." It fits fine, doesn't interfere with the lens hood, looks clear, seems to attenuate that nasty ultra-violet part of the light spectrum and perhaps best of all, protects the front element. What more would one want?

Canon is getting a reputation for overpriced gear when it comes to advanced amateurs or pros. But there are some minor exceptions. This is one of them.

Canon's price is reasonable compared to others. It's quality is not to be argued with.There are several companies I'd buy filters from based on where I get the best price including shippng. So I've bought several of these. I can't say without a quick invenory how many Canon filters I've bought.

Should you keep a UV or piece of glass on your lens? That;s not a simple call, but generally I'd say yes. When I worked at this for a living, I usually didn't with specific lenses. Some occasions allowed for it, but the effect on optics however trivial is real -- bt only sometimes. Someone who knows about when will know. The others should keep it on. I banged up a lot of lenses. Some had bent filter rings. One had some damage to the front element. It was a Nikon lens bought new. It looked awful and worked fine. I checked the optics against the original test shots and they were the same. A filter wouldn't have protected any lens from some of the things that totaled a couple.

Every lens I buy has a filter of some kind on it within a reasonable period of time. In the small number of cases where I think it matters, I take it off. The result is that I've banged up a couple of filters instead of my lenses. A slip that could have ruined a $1500 lens cost me a $40 filter, assuming I objected to it being scarred up. (actually, I repaied it and repainted it).

Murphy's law says it's going to happen. I bought a new lens last Noember and a filter. As soon as I put the lens on the camerra, the dog showed up and gave the front element a big lick. Carefully leaned it off and put a filter on. I'd have that happen to a lense with a soft coating.

The sharp cut matters on some lenses. But others make an equivalent. If he Canon price is comparable to oen of the other major brands, buy what's easy for you-- or this one

Just another basic UV filter.
Do not be fooled by Canon name on it.
Do not expect miracles. (Though, you have to expect ghosts in certain lighting conditions instead!)
This filter is uncoated, not even a single-layer coating.
My filter has arrived with a huge scratch on the outer part of the ring which fixates the glass - apparently as a result of a bad assembly. What is even worse, the scratch was kind of "masked" with a permanent marker.
Since the filter was sealed in the box, I guess that this was the factory know-how. Shame!

I like my new 30D camera and 24-70mm FL2.8 lens so much that I decided to buy the filter from Canon instead of any other brand. Nothing much I can say about the filter itself. Without a careful test, one can not tell the difference between a Canon filer and a cheap one made by some unknown company. However, I had to return this filter twice. First, I got a used filter. I have bought so many things from Amazon without any problems. So I truly believe that this was just a mistake. The filter was scratched badly and packed with many finger prints. So I returned it for an exchance. I got the second one today and felt very disappointed. This one seems to be better than the first one. But again, full of finger prints. The lense is floating around in the box and is NOT in the filter case. I looked at it closely and found the filter frame was scratched badly but some one tried to hide those scratches with a black marker. I tried to remove the finger prints and the black ink are removed as well showing the scratches on the filter frame. This time I am going to get the full refund and buy the filter from some one else.

I wouldnt recommend this UV Haze filter for anyone unless you need basic protection for your lens if you are traveling in the sahara or something. In normal conditions the filter actually makes picture look less saturated and stale, and also can add a glare to the picture. Would be better to get a polarizer or some other type of filter than this one.

I normaly use Canon's 77mm L39 Sharp Cut UV/Haze filters on my glass, but I can't find them any more! So I tried this one and promptly returned it. These normal 77mm non-L39 filters are junk! Horribly constructed and way too WIDE (produced vignetting on my wide glass).

Amazon and Canon, please bring back the L39 filter!!

Commenting more on the condition of the filter when I received it than the filter itself, but I ordered this filter with a new lens. It arrived loose in its packaging, had fingerprints on it, and was scrached. Very disappointed that this item was shipped to me. Maybe people handling the item don't realize what photographers expect, and the Canon packaging is just no good. I suspect the thickness of this filter would also cause vignetting on a full frame camera with any wide-angle lens. Returned for refund. On the good side, image quality through the filter seems crisp, and little vignetting on a 20D sensor, so suspect a truly new version would be fine on longer lenses. Keep in mind that this is a slightly tinted filter, (UV/Haze) not just a clear UV.

Like others have said, this is much easier to clean or replace than your front element so defiantly buy one...

However, mine from Amazon came in an unsealed previously opened plastic case with the packaging all bent up, the threads were damaged, front of metal ring was scratched, and the glass was VERY loose in the housing and had fingerprints all over it. Amazon CS issued a refund no problem, but claimed they were unable to replace because this was no longer available to them...????

Yet here it is still in stock and for sale..don't be surprised if you get my return, I clearly got someone else's.