| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2005 09:42:43 PM · #1 |
I'm going to purchase the Canon 50mm F/1.8 lens from B&H Photo, and I think I might as well get some filters for it at the same time.
I see that the filter size for that lens is 52mm - I also plan on buying the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 lens, which has a 67mm filter size, so should I just buy seperate filters when I buy it? Or would one of the step up/down rings B&H sells work well too?
If I just get one set of filters, should I get the 67mm size so that it would work normally with the Tamron lens, but I could use the adapter for the other?
Also, I'm not sure which brand/model/type of filters I should get. I guess I'll get a circular polarizer and maybe a UV filter.
Is it worth the extra to get a B+W with the MRC feature, as opposed to a standard one?
Any thoughts/suggestions are appreciated, thanks
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 09:51:52 PM · #2 |
Buy a Cokin system and just buy the adapter that fits into that size lens. You will save money in the long run by doing this.
I think the only one that you can't get with the system is a circular polarizer.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 09:53:08 PM · #3 |
Definitely get the larger filters and a step up ring. It's obviously cheaper to buy one set of filters and it's a lot easier to only carry around one set too.
I personally use cokin filters. They're inexpensive and unless you are obsessed with unbelievable quality they work well enough. You definitely need a UV filter for protection that you can leave on all the time. You also should get a circular polarizer, but you may actually want to shell out some cash for a decent one. I bought a cheap one that works great most of the time, but other times I get crazy lens flare.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:19:16 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Buy a Cokin system and just buy the adapter that fits into that size lens. You will save money in the long run by doing this.
I think the only one that you can't get with the system is a circular polarizer. |
Actually, circular polarizers are available as well.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 01:41:50 AM · #5 |
the fifty's lens is very recessed into the barrel. I don't find a need for a uv filter for protection. As for a CPL, I think you can either get one for it or get one for the Tamron and get a step down ring so you can fit the bigger 62mm filter of the Tamron onto the fifty.
Personally, I'd just get the fifty and play around with it and see if you need a CPL for it. I don't use my fifty for landscape, so I don't find any need for a filter on it. For the Tamron, I've a UV and a CPL filters. The cheap ones from eBay.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 01:51:38 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by yido:
the fifty's lens is very recessed into the barrel. I don't find a need for a uv filter for protection. |
That's what you say until a passing car kicks up a pebble that is fated for your lens.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 01:58:40 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jpeters:
Originally posted by yido:
the fifty's lens is very recessed into the barrel. I don't find a need for a uv filter for protection. |
That's what you say until a passing car kicks up a pebble that is fated for your lens. |
So instead of spending anywhere from $20-50 to protect an $80 lens from a possible accident, you get another one if it breaks, so you gamble $30-60 or so. I could certainly understand it for an expensive lens.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:02:17 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by yido:
Originally posted by jpeters:
Originally posted by yido:
the fifty's lens is very recessed into the barrel. I don't find a need for a uv filter for protection. |
That's what you say until a passing car kicks up a pebble that is fated for your lens. |
So instead of spending anywhere from $20-50 to protect an $80 lens from a possible accident, you get another one if it breaks, so you gamble $30-60 or so. I could certainly understand it for an expensive lens. |
Nah, I would buy a $5 filter on ebay. That's what I have on mine. It may not have the great "dehazing" effects of an expensive filter, but it keeps things from making contact with my lens.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:04:55 AM · #9 |
different strokes for different folks I guess.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:07:36 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by yido:
different strokes for different folks I guess. |
Yeah, as the kids these days say-- it's all good.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 02:39:34 AM · #11 |
The problem with step-down rings is you can't mount the lens hood when you are using them, a serious deficiency in my eyes. I have filters sized to each of my lenses. I try to buy lenses that match in size. Tammy 28-75 is same as Canon 70-200 f/4, 67mm. Canon 60mm macro is 52mm thread, and I alreadyhad those filters. But my 10-22mm Canon needs 77mm filters, which I don't have any of as yet. Not so much of a loss as I don't usually like to polarize skies with such a wide angle lens. But poalrizer would be nice for shots with reflective foregrounds. It's on my list, along with the bigger bag LOL.
R. |
|
|
|
12/01/2005 12:57:13 PM · #12 |
All that work for a $80 lens?
Well, I guess, it's all good. |
|
|
|
12/01/2005 08:33:10 PM · #13 |
I got the lens, a 67mm circular polarizer and the adapter for it. That works because I also might get the 70-200 4.0L if I decide I need it (rather than a macro lens). Thanks for the advice, all.
I might get the Cokin filters later on, or maybe just a UV filter for every lens.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 08:40:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by jpeters:
Nah, I would buy a $5 filter on ebay. That's what I have on mine. It may not have the great "dehazing" effects of an expensive filter, but it keeps things from making contact with my lens. |
i makes no sense to buy good glass and then add a cheap lens/filter in front of it. Kind of defeats the purpose of it all.
A lens hood and some common sense works well. Nothing is fool proof, as people drop cameras all the time.
As for gravel from passing cars - what kind of photography are you doing anyway?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2005 08:49:49 PM · #15 |
| I've never put a filter on the 50mm and I have not had any problems. It's a really great piece of glass for the money, and it seems almost silly putting a decent filter on it that costs almost as much or MORE than the lens itself. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 01:01:26 PM EDT.
