- Status
) and I want to protect the glass. Can anyone recommend a good quality clear screw in fliter so i won't scratch the glass on the lens
I have B&W and Helicon, but seldom use them. If I were to go out in a dust storm or where mud or dirt was a likely possibility, I'd put one on.
I really should sell some of them, I have a ton of filters that I bought when I first started and before I realized that I liked the sharpness better without them. I keep them because I might need them, but I have too many duplicates. Many have come from used film cameras and lenses. If they are Hoya or B&W I hang on to them. I even have a 3 pc set of 77mm Nikon branded filters that came with a used Canon 17-40mm lens!
I really should sell some of them, I have a ton of filters that I bought when I first started and before I realized that I liked the sharpness better without them. I keep them because I might need them, but I have too many duplicates. Many have come from used film cameras and lenses. If they are Hoya or B&W I hang on to them. I even have a 3 pc set of 77mm Nikon branded filters that came with a used Canon 17-40mm lens!
Upvote
0
I would save my money. Filters don't protect the lens from falls; only splashes and dust / particles.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Edwin Herdman said:
The OP didn't ask about falls, but rather about scratches. Granted, a hood should be the first line of defense, but on wide lenses the hood doesn't offer much protection, and even with the deep round hood of the 100-400, I've had branches poke inside the hood while hiking.
Upvote
0
i agree with using filters to protect your glass but i had a paid family shoot today inside a nice warm house i knew there was little chance of anything bad happening so i removed the filter for the best possible quality but outdoors keep it on is what i do 
Upvote
0
Edwin Herdman said:
It depends where you go to shoot. You'll find that the overwhelming majority of professional photographers leave a UV filter (or similar) on every lens they own. Something they don't mind wiping down with their shirt. Something that can be quickly replaced for under $100. Something that experience has shown them to be a very smart default position.
Run a series of tests with a clean, unscratched good quality UV filter. Filter on/filter off. You'll be very hard pressed to see any difference in your files. Wear your protection!
Filters have saved lenses from damage on multiple occasions for me. A bump against the filter thread on a lens without a hood can damage the thread more easily than you might imagine. I've bent and trashed filters then been able to unscrew them and been relieved to find the filter thread undamaged. The filter rim took the hit. For this reason I only use the slim filters on my ultra-wides. (vignetting)
Front filters are not always practical or possible such as on the 300mm f/2.8is. However, Canon knows that photographers will need to wipe these down. The front glass on the 300 is in fact relatively inexpensive plain glass, replacable by Canon for a price, but a very small percentage of the cost of a new front element.
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
Sorry to piggy back on your questions but I purchased this week 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS w/ B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating but I noticed I have option to add one additional filter such as UV filter. My question is can I use B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating or do I need purchase another B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating and both? Thanks for your input!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
m3tek44 said:
Good choice on lens and circular polarizer (CPL)!
You can and should use the CPL by itself. When it's on the lens it will protect it (which is the reason to use a UV/clear filter), but you shouldn't leave the CPL on all the time, because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light.
For a protection filter, dSLRs are basically insensitive to UV wavelengths (unlike film), so there's no difference between UV and clear - get whichever is cheapest.
Hope that helps...
Upvote
0
m3tek44 said:
You're unlikely to leave the CPL on the lens except for those occasions when you do need it. Leave it in the bag. What you do need to leave permanently on your lens is a UV or clear filter. Never stack filters. Take the UV/clear off when you need the CPL.
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
neuroanatomist.... Thank you for your input!! I have Big fan of Canonrumors and I've seen MANY of your comments in forums which is VERY knowledgeable. One of reason why I purchased 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS was your feedback from different forums so thank you!!! I am LOVING this lens.
I am still amateur to photography and I can use some of your inputs. Can you explain what you mean by "because it costs you ~1.75 stops of light." Thank you!!!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
m3tek44 said:
Glad to help! Just hold the CPL up to the light - it's dark like sunglasses, meaning it's blocking some of the light. One stop of light is a halving or doubling of the intensity. That's the scale used in photography - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are all adjusted in stops (sometimes 1/3 or 1/2 stops).
So, if you use the CPL when light isn't bright, you might be needlessly using too slow a shutter speed or too high an ISO.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
