| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2008 10:48:55 PM · #1 |
There are so many choices out there and many varying prices. I'm not against spending $50-$75 on a filter, but why should I buy the more expensive one. I'm looking for suggestions for my 17-85mm Canon EFS (67mm).
which do you have and why do you like/dislike it. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:16:42 PM · #2 |
| This would be an excellent price for a double-coated circular polarizer (the least I'd get for the equipmt. you use). The best are the German-made B + W and Heliopan at roughly three times the price you quote. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 02:56:19 AM · #3 |
I took the plunge and bought the B + W -- saved about $40 buying it new on Ebay if that helps. I bought the Kaesemann which is sealed for weather because I thought if I'm spending over $100 on a filter I may as well look at it as a life long investment.
The big difference with the B + W / Heliopan vs less expensive filters is the quality of the glass (and general craftsmanship). Just like lenses, filters come in varying qualities. I have one pretty nice lens, the Canon 2.8 IS, USM, L 70-200mm. I would rather be certain I'm not hindering a $1700 lens by putting a cheap filter in front of it. Like the lens, I look at the filter as something I will have for many years.
The B + W runs about $160.
With filters I buy the largest (77mm for my Canon lenses) and a step down ring for my smaller lenses. This way I only have to invest in the filter once.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:57:51 AM · #4 |
I've got a Hoya filter around the price range you mentioned. It's been great, no problems so far. A friend of mine bought a cheaper 'no-brand' filter, and after a couple of years, the edges are going grungy - something about the coating delaminating from the glass or something like that. More expensive filters will also be better coating for less reflection/flare, smoother rotating, thinner filter, etc.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:33:30 AM · #5 |
Oh and for a wider angle lens you might want to look into the the "thin" filters which are desgined for wide angle.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:42:32 AM · #6 |
I use a tiffen circular polarizer that I bought secondhand for that lens- works pretty well. But like the guy said above me, you have to use a thin faced filter because at 17mm the filter chops off the corners a little.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 05:43:27. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 07:47:18 AM · #7 |
Thanks for all your help so far.
I'll look into the B+W ones, but am not promising anything ;)
I eventually plan on getting the EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS and the EFS 10-22mm, I guess I'll see what size they are and buy step down rings for the smaller ones whichever brand I get. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 08:01:59 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by XMountaineer:
I eventually plan on getting the EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS and the EFS 10-22mm, I guess I'll see what size they are and buy step down rings for the smaller ones whichever brand I get. |
Both lenses are 77mm. You'll want a thin one as mentioned to swap on the 10-22. The only thing about the thin ones is there's no grooves on the outer side to hold your lenscap on. My B+W came with a cheap cap that never stays on, so I just take the filter off after I'm done with it. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 02:35:52 PM · #9 |
alright
would this be good
This filter
with this step up ring
to use on my Canon 17-85mm |
|
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: 08/02/2025 03:05:12 PM EDT.
