 Deborah Liperote |
The dreaded lens filter vs. lens hood question there is alot to say about the pros and cons of filters. I did get lens hoods for my lens but I can't help but feel like I need filters for extra protection. do you really feel that they limit the optics of your lens by using them? Are their certain filters of higher optic quality than others? Like what is the difference between: B+W 72mm UV Haze 010 Glass Filter I really would just like to get a filter that won't decrease the optic quality of my lens so can anyone help me on the best filter to get? Or do you really think a filter is unnecessary as long as I keep the hood on?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Lens Protection Is A Must And A Hood Only Just Wont Do It, You Have The Right Brand For Sure, These Will Not Effect The Quality Of Your Images Use The UV Haze MRC 010 Deb, The Strong UV Filters Are For Higher Elevations...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deborah Liperote |
Thanks very much Terry. If you wouldn't mind indulging me once more... Which one? I have canon 28-135mmIS also canon 50mm f/1.4 (I realize it's 58mm)But I'm mainly portrait photographer, weddings etc. B+W 72mm UV Haze 010 (MRC) Multi-Resistant Coating Glass Filter Extra Wide (86mm Front)$124.95 What's the extra wide front for? And what's the slim for? Sorry if these are stupid questions. Thank you in advance!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
The Extra Wide And The Slim Mounts Are For Wide Angle Lens, The Slim Mount Has No Front Threads For Stacking Filters, The 28/135mm Isn't Wide Enough For The Wide Mount Or The Slim Mounts Neither Is The 50mm So You Get Off Cheaper This Time:-) You Have To Get Down To About 20mm Or Wider To Need Those Type Mounts, Now If You Plan On Going Wider At A Latter Date You Might Want To Consider A Slim Mount, And Swap Between Lens But Since Your Work Is Mostly Portraits I Doubt You Need The Slim One...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deborah Liperote |
Thanks so much Terry, by the way your gallery is the bomb! I just ordered the canon 30d from B&H on sunday and I went ahead and got the 18-55mm lens. for a $100 bucks why not? But I do think I want to get a 20mm prime lens down the road. I make money off of portrait and weddings but I love nature. My theory is that I will probably want each of my lenses to have their own "protective filter" don't you think. While I have you or really anyone that wants to answer... for nice wide angle shots do you think 20mm for scenery is good or would you go to like 14mm (remember 1.6 crop crap) I know a 15mm lens is considered a fisheye but on 1.6 crop factor is it still? or is it now 24mm. will their be distortion or will it be like a normal 24mm on a 35mm camera? this is confusing... the digital world.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Thanks For Viewing My Gallery Deb! All My Lenses Have Their Own UV Filters, So Yes To That One. 20mm Isn't Wide Enough For The 1.6 Crop Factor That Makes It a 32mm, Wide But Not Wide Enough, Look At This Fine Image Made With A 10/22mm: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.php?photoID=1800730&catID=9637&style=&contestCatID=1&rowNumber=10&camID= I'm Not Sure The Focal Length It Was Shot At But This Is The Range You Need To Be In, That Gives You A 16/35mm With your Crop Factor Just Right Don't You Think? The Fisheye Lens Would Be Subject To The Crop Factor Too. As Far As The Distortion Still Being Their That's a Good Question! I Don't Have Experience With This Novelty Lens So I Don't Know. I Use A 12/24mm For My Wide Angle Images "I Shoot With Nikon Equipment" With A Crop Factor Of 1.5 Giving Me A 18/36mm Range And Its Just Right. Now When You Get To The Telephoto Lens Range You Will Praise That Crop Factor:-)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I'm one who chooses to shoot filter-free, unless the filter is for balancing light (color correction) or for a particular effect I'm trying to achieve. I believe that the less expensive filters used commonly as lens protection will degrade image quality(...albeit slightly), and I cannot justify spending big bucks for optically superior filters to protect my lenses when I can just be careful. You mentioned lens hoods as protection. These have drawbacks as well. Aside from not really protecting the front of the glass, they can cause vignetting when used with a wide-angle lens. Bob
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deborah Liperote |
Thanks for your input Bob and Terry. I saw the picture you're talking about. That's awesome. I was wondering if the 20mm wouldn't be enough so I will looking into 10-22. what do you think of sigma lenses?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
I Don't Recommend Third Party Lenses Stick With Your Canon Lenses, I Had A 105mm Sigma EX Lens It Was Really Noisy And Had Flimsy Construction, A Lot Of People Like Them Though.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
i have the Sigma wide and its awesome! I think its as good as the canon, its not noisey or flimsy in the least....very higlhy recomend this one... check the galleries on (i think its P base) they have a search where you can search photos by lens ort camera or both. It is a BIG lens though... but I love it! Craig-
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deborah Liperote |
Thanks Craig and Terry. See that's what I love about this site. you get two opposite opinions and are given the pros and cons of each. that allows me to weigh your comments along with my thoughts and allows me to come up with a good informed decision. You guys are great.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Well DL, here's a third perspective. I think based on your stated uses, you're planning on spending waaaaay too much on haze filters that you really don't need for shooting portraits or weddings anyway. Unless of course you're working at high altitude in the Rocky Mountains in bright sunlight at mid-day. I'll spare you my lecture series on filters. I use them, a fair amount actually, but only when I think they're really necessary and never for lens protection unless I'm shooting in either a sandstorm. Instead, I'll recommend that before you buy any filters, you drop about $20-25 bucks on a book that explains how and when to use filters, and THEN decide what you might need at some point. I will also recommend that since you apparently have lenses with different sizes, that when you get around to buying filters, get something like either a Hitech, Lee, Sailwind, or even Cokin P ring, optical resin systems that allow you to use different filters and different combinations of filters (stacking them) in the same holder but on different size lenses by just changing the ring that the holder you use to attach it to the lens with. And, btw, rather than haze filters, which are only really useful in rare conditions, start with warming filters, probably an 81B (not even an 81A). As long as you're inclined to blow big bucks on B+W glass, take a look at their Redhancer filters. Course, if you use PS rather than film, you really don't need anything more than a lens hood, I think anyway. Lens hoods? Sure, I don't think I ever shoot without a hood of one type or another. My Hitech system has a 100MM diameter hood I'll use at times, although the holder itself operates as a lens shade but virtually all my 35mm, MF, and LF lenses have their own properly sized lens hood. I want to emphasize PROPERLY SIZED HOOD. A properly sized lens shade for any lens won't cause vignetting. Nor will a lens hood necessarily prevent scratching, gouging, etc., of any lens. About all they may do is prevent someone in a crowd from getting their thumb print on your glass OR, remind you to be careful, you're carrying a camera with a lens. A lens hood, however, will help prevent glare and flare in some situations, and help deliver a cleaner image in that respect. Oh one last thing: Maybe instead of spending a lot of dough on new glass, you ought to rent what you're thinking about buying?? That includes Sigma and other brands for a lot of reasons including to run tests to see what your preference is. You may actually find that a lower priced lens at the resolution you work at most, is more than satisfactory for your purposes now and in the future. You might actually find what you're planning to purchase ain't suited to the work you plan to use it for. Unless of course, you like to pack and schlep around lot of glass. Take it light.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
BTW, there's another thought or two to consider. First, the quality of modern coatings on lenses is such that they resist things like damage from dirt, dust, etc. And, when you really think about it, what's the point in putting an additional piece of glass between the lens and potential harm, e.g., dust, dirt, etc. When the filter gets dirty, you have to clean it the same as you'd clean a lens when it gets dirty, right? Sure. As far as protection from physical damage, i.e., scrapes, cuts, scratches, and so forth...when you consider how much force it takes to do that kind of harm to a lens, chances are a filter is going to break and whatever caused the breakage will probably continue on through to the lens surface itself. So, your lens is probably going to get toasted under that scenario anyway. Also given modern coatings nowadays as compared with those in say the late 1970's or early 1980's, your lens probably has built in UV and haze protection anyway. Check the manufacturer specs. or send their tech support an inquiry by e-mail. In that respect, it's kind of like adding sun bloc on top of the same level of sun bloc hoping to get double the protection that you may not even need in the first instance. Seewhatimeanhuh?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
George Anderson |
Filters used as protection only have always had their detractors. The amount of optical degradation depends partly on the filter quality, size of film/sensor, and the quality of the lens - I'm more likely to notice a difference with the best quality optics and small format. But protection filters are very useful for sports/street photographers who often get their equipment banged up, where a lens cap or hood doesn't give sufficient protection. I remember one guy at a motorsport competition who had a filter turn opaque after just a day of shooting in the pits from all the flying debris. Since he was shooting a Leica, I'm sure he was thankful that all he had to do was throw the filter away. Protection filters are also very popular in the Southwest, where dusty winds often have rock and sand particles that act like sandpaper. Windshields out here get pitted in a couple months from blowing dust. You can use a tight-fitting lens cap, of course, but not everyone remembers to replace the cap as often as they should.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Marcia L. Getto |
Hello Everyone -- I hope you don't mind reviving a year-old discussion about filters. I use a Canon 30D, upgraded from a Digital Rebel a year ago. I use a variety of "protection" filters on all my lenses. I didn't think much about brand/quality until recently. I almost ordered a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM because I'm not happy with the sharpness from my EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS. (I have a 300-500, so losing that extra 100mm isn't a problem). It just hit me like a rock that the quality issue may not be the lens, but rather the Quantaray DMC-1A filter. It has a few scratches, so I'm a solid advocate for using a protection filter. However, I'm wondering if using this store-brand filter is the problem. I'd rather spend the bucks on a quality filter than big bucks on a new lens. Your thoughts? Thanks,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
David A. Bliss |
I don't shoot with "protection" filters. I have polarizers, and ND and GND cokins. I have always had a problem with putting an extra piece of glass on my lens for no reason, especially if it is not a top quality filter. George's example is very extreme. If you are shooting in a situation where you EXPECT that there will be lens damage, then by all means, use every means necessary to protect your gear. Very few people will be shooting in this extreme of a situation. To the OP (or any one else in this situation), it appears you are shooting portraits and weddings. I can see no reason why you would ever need a filter for protection. Protection from what? While I don't treat my equipment like museum pieces (in fact, it gets pretty banged up at times), I simply use reasonable care to avoid damage. Yes, I have broken a lens, but the front element came out of it completely unscathed! ;) Also, the front element can have defects that do not effect the picture. Different lenses will react to different defects differently, of course. The picture shown was shot with a lens with a pretty good ding in the front element. It is an older lens, it was older when I bought it, and that was, geez, I guess 10 years ago. Anyway, I was able to get it at a much reduced price, because I new the ding wasn't a big deal, but the pawn shop where I bought it didn't know that. Ok, enough of my babbling. I guess my point is, just use common sense. Think to yourself "Is my lens in danger?" Personally, I think leaving ANY filter on regardless of the situation is simply being lazy. We take the time to change lenses for each shoot, why not take the extra 30 seconds and remove or add filters?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
