| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2004 06:47:16 PM · #1 |
I recently read a thread that discussed filters but can't find it.
I put a standard UV filter on all of my lenses for protection, this thread made me think and went along the lines of 'adding a cheap filter to a good lens is like taking pictures out of a dirty window'
I'm awaiting delivery of a 17-40 f4l and purchased a 77mm hama UV O-Haze filter to put on it. Is this a decent filter for the lens? and/or can anybody suggest a filter more suitable for my first L series lens? I really dont want to go out 'unprotected'.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 07:04:46 PM · #2 |
I got a B&W UV-Haze Filter when I bought the 70-200 F2.8L... It was recommended by the store. Don't know if this is better than Hoya.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 07:11:46 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I recently read a thread that discussed filters but can't find it.
I put a standard UV filter on all of my lenses for protection, this thread made me think and went along the lines of 'adding a cheap filter to a good lens is like taking pictures out of a dirty window'
I'm awaiting delivery of a 17-40 f4l and purchased a 77mm hama UV O-Haze filter to put on it. Is this a decent filter for the lens? and/or can anybody suggest a filter more suitable for my first L series lens? I really dont want to go out 'unprotected'. |
The B+W are typically considered some of the best filters, but they're not cheap. a 77mm UV will run you about $80. There's not much of a difference of opinion on what are the best UV-type filters - B+W, Heliopan, but quite a difference of opinion on whether or not to use them.
I use them on all my glass (three of which are L-series lenses) and I've been convinced to try going without for a while. Unless you're in an extreme environment (lots of dust, sand, water spray, rain, etc) you shouldn't need it. Keep it handy for those situations when you do. I'm going to shoot without for a while and see if I can notice a difference. I guess the same scene with/without will be a good comparison.
One thing to note is that almost all who shoot without a filter shoot with a hood in place. This offers protection of the surface of the front element from random unforseen scratching opportunities.
For lots of discussion of this, see the forum over at Fred Miranda:
//www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/112697/0
Message edited by author 2004-07-25 16:18:19. |
|
|
|
07/24/2004 07:11:50 PM · #4 |
I use a 62mm Hama UV filter on my Nikon 28-200 lens.
Hama is a decent brand.
I know there's a huge argument about these filters and image quality but I don't see a difference. To me with or without the filter it looks all the same. |
|
|
|
07/24/2004 08:55:25 PM · #5 |
My 17-40 4L arrives tomorrow. I ordered it with a B&W UV and B&W polariser. Very expensive but well worth it.
I have no experience with the Hama brand hence I wouldn't buy one for an L lens.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 09:04:51 PM · #6 |
I use B&W filters exclusively for all my glass. They are constructed with brass rings and are therefore a little heavier than most, but they are very good quality. The very first thing I do with a lens when I take it out of the box is to pop on a UV filter - purely for protection. I can live with having to replace an $80 filter, but I would spontaneously combust if I were to scratch the front element, particularly on an L series lens. Just cheap insurance for me.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 09:27:51 PM · #7 |
I like the German Heliopan filters. They're more costly than the ones mentioned here, but I would invest more for my critical filters on L lenses.
|
|
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: 09/11/2025 06:49:33 PM EDT.
