October 01, 2014, 08:58:49 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 232
1951
I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned.

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens.

No, personally I don't care about drinks, kids sticky fingers or any number of other things, modern lens coatings are pretty tough, but like I said, filter use is an entirely personal opinion, there are pluses and minuses to both sides. I have lost two 17" MacBook Pros to drinks, I have never degraded any lens element because of it. Say he had swung his glass enough to break your filter? In that situation he might have knocked my lens hood off, I can put it back on again whereas you have glass shards all over your front element and in your filter thread.

 As for cleaning, I make my own solution out of Isopropyl Rubbing alcohol, ammonia solution and a little distilled water, it costs a couple of dollars for a good quantity and you can mix it strong to get ride of some very severe looking marks that often turn out to be grease and grime.

1. I always use lens hoods but that won't always save your lens or front element.

2. The filter is a second line of protection. As for shattering glass, I've had one shatter on my 24L II and simply unscrewed it, and continued to shoot the rest of the event. If I didn't have one, There would be one less 24L II in the world.

3. In the heat of good shots, stopping to carefully clean beer off your front element shows a lack of preparation as a candid-man and your in-experience to your employer.

Did you get those shots? You stopped because of that? Wheres your Filter?

1952
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'
« on: December 14, 2012, 12:05:59 PM »
If you love your 7D, You will hate the 6D. After owning the 7D, I wouldn't want anything less than its AF and the 5D3 is that camera for me IMO. You will have to ditch the Kit lens from the 60D with either camera.

1953
The 135L vignettes at F/2 on FF. On your 550D, It doesn't see this because of the crop sensor and the 5D will show this. I believe it just the learning curve of getting used to the MK3, and how the Camera "behaves". You might have to expose more to right or stop down to remove the vignette.

1954
I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

How about at a crazy reception party? Where a happy patron swings around a beer, slathering your 50L with its lens hood on full of bubbly joy? Well, in my case my filter was pretty ugly and require a moment of serious cleaning. I wouldn't have felt comfortable cleaning my front element as harshly as it needed to be cleaned.

Now, this wasn't a "harsh" environment at all but one of the many times which a filter has saved my lens. 

1955
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:00:23 AM »
I only miss the reach from APS-c but nothing else.

1956
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Anyone received their $2499 5D3 from bigvalueinc?
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:57:56 AM »
I'm a pretty patient guy. I've waited 3 years for the MK3 to be released, wait 6 months for the bugs to get panned out and waited a bit longer for a good price.

3 weeks went by quickly.

1957
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Anyone received their $2499 5D3 from bigvalueinc?
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:52:15 AM »
@RLPhoto, how long did it take from purchase to arriaval?

3 weeks.

1958
Portrait / Re: Food pics - help required
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:49:33 AM »
It depends on the food. I done a lot of food before and I always use novatron strobes for the power output they have. If you cannot acquire some strobes, you can make due with your 430EX with some creative use of reflectors and bounce cards. The only issue is you will have to keep your Aperture Small and shutter-speed high to get lots of DOF and to prevent ambient adding color casts. This means with a tiny 430EX, you will have to raise your ISOs.

Your question is too broad, we really need to know the genre of food you will be doing.

1959
Technical Support / Re: Mirror fallen out of 5D - self repair ?
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:41:29 AM »
The mirror box failure can be fixed by canon for free. It an issue on all 5Ds. I ran almost 120,000 photos thru mine before it felt on its last leg, and sold it. Never had the mirror fall out on my 5Dc.

1960
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Anyone received their $2499 5D3 from bigvalueinc?
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:38:56 AM »
Yes. It's fantastic.

1961
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Massive Nikon D600+24-85VR Deal - $1996
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:36:24 AM »
Sounds like Nikon is getting really desperate ... usually manufacturers don't sell their brand new products at such incredibly low prices ... their sales must be really low. But good times for the buyers.

I'm waiting for 6D to drop to $1200ish ;D ;D ;D

Perhaps BigValueInc? :D

1962
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:33:33 AM »
Good job sigma. You've won this round.

1963
Lenses / Re: Zoom vs Primes?
« on: December 14, 2012, 09:22:21 AM »
yeah, rlphoto, i haul more a good bit more stuff than that to wedding shoots. My brother works video at weddings all the time, and he says i use WAY more than anyone he's ever seen at a ceremony/formals, then i use way less the rest of the night. probably cause i'm tired! Although i've sworn i'm done carrying my speedotron 2403 and 3 head around. done, totally, never again, i don't care how nice it would be to have that much power, i'm not doing it.........

(yeah, i'll probably do it the next time i think i'll need it. )

This is basically my line of thinking on the wedding day. I have a ThinkTank Airport Security bag stuffed full of lenses, 3 bodies, and 4 flashes, pocket wizards, batteries, filters, etc... Then I carry another bag with 2 light stands, tripod, and umbrellas. I'd rather put up with the slight hassle and have everything I could possibly need than leave something at home because I think it would weigh me down.

I love quotes taken out of context. :|

1964
Even on my Expensive L Primes, I use the Top of the line B&W MRC Nano XS-Pro UV filters. Its simply superb.

I don't use them much myself ... but I know many do and swear by it. Is this because you feel there is no perceptible change whatsoever in high-performing lenses or you have made your peace with the potential trade off for possible protection? And, I did say "potential" trade-off.  :)

I want to protect my front element from cleaning, scratching, chemicals, abrasives, small meteorites from space or anything else from touching it. A UV filter already saved my 24L II once and will continue to use them.

I cannot distinguish IQ loss from the filter, B&ws are that good.

1965
Lenses / Re: Which lenses will match a 40+MP camera?
« on: December 13, 2012, 11:20:16 PM »
Have you even used the 135L? ???

Pages: 1 ... 129 130 [131] 132 133 ... 232