filter

kenwood72 · Jul 7, 2008

i am buying a canon 70-200 IS f4 lens and want to buy a uv filter for protection. i am now learning how vastly different glass can be and I do not want to buy a uv filter that retards my performance. is there anything I can get in the 50 dollar range that will compliment rather than detract?

seamus14 · Jul 7, 2008

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hoya-77mm-Pro1-...photoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

I'm guessing it's a 77 but if not they sell the same filter in all sizes.

prodigy2k7 · Jul 8, 2008

Are you sure you want the IS? You can get the 2.8 non-IS for like $100 more, if im not mistaken?

tirediron · Jul 8, 2008

Check out your local used store for Hoya or B+W

kenwood72 · Jul 8, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
Are you sure you want the IS? You can get the 2.8 non-IS for like $100 more, if im not mistaken?

yeah, I have a good friend who is professional photog and he recommended it. also the 2.8 is way too big.

WDodd · Jul 8, 2008

Get a B+W or a Hoya. I personally use Hoya.

prodigy2k7 · Jul 8, 2008

kenwood72 said:
yeah, I have a good friend who is professional photog and he recommended it. also the 2.8 is way too big.

Eh but it has a good pro! F/2.8 ya its big but meh.. Its only like 3 pounds! get a monopod

kenwood72 · Jul 9, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
Eh but it has a good pro! F/2.8 ya its big but meh.. Its only like 3 pounds! get a monopod

i already have one.....:lmao: bad joke but anyhow I want a more mobile lens and I have read a lot of great reviews on what I bought, I have not seen a single negative. my next lens will be a better 17-55 but that may be a while out.

i bought it from bh they were very helpful, talked to a guy who seemed knowledgeable and got b+w filter as well. i like it when I offer a budget and someone comes in at less money.

i will pst some pics soon.

also he is a great pro, he has done some amazing stuff and anyone who can make a living touring the world photgraphing race cars must be good:hail:

kenwood72 · Jul 9, 2008

i read too much crap on the web, I just read a review that said this lense is too heavy for a lightweight camera like mine. any thoughts??? I wish I was not bored so I would not look at that crap!!!

Mystwalker · Jul 9, 2008

I read 70-200 f/4L IS has some of the best IQ - comparable or better then that from f/2.8L IS.

imo, if you are going to spend $1K for a lens, spend $80 for the B+W 010 MRC filter from B&H - I believe this is their top of the line

icassell · Jul 9, 2008

kenwood72 said:
i read too much crap on the web, I just read a review that said this lense is too heavy for a lightweight camera like mine. any thoughts??? I wish I was not bored so I would not look at that crap!!!

Garbage! Attach the tripod to the collar on the lens and not to the camera.

kenwood72 · Jul 9, 2008

Mystwalker said:
I read 70-200 f/4L IS has some of the best IQ - comparable or better then that from f/2.8L IS.

imo, if you are going to spend $1K for a lens, spend $80 for the B+W 010 MRC filter from B&H - I believe this is their top of the line

that is the filter i bought. :sexywink:

kundalini · Jul 9, 2008

Good on ya.

I came across this by Thom Hogan, an interesting read, but I liked the following thoughts:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thom's Maxim #20: Good filters are expensive.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I'm always amused when a student pulls out $10 plastic filters and sticks these on the front of their $1400+ lenses. What's the expectation here? Unless it's some cartoon-like effect, this is an almost certain way to lower the quality of image that your camera can capture. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The reason why good lenses are expensive is that it is not easy to grind glass in ways that are defect free, and it takes multiple, well-researched coatings (and expensive glass) to keep colors neutral and focused at the same spot. You could take a piece of window pane glass and spray something on it and have a filter. But window pane glass doesn't have a perfectly even thickness, and what you spray as a coating needs to have known properties for how it passes light.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The most obvious of these cheap, cartoon-like filters are the Cokin P graduated filters. Cokin makes them in Tobacco, Smoke, and supposedly Neutral variations, as well as a bunch of more bizarre renditions, such as Blue, Orange, and even Yellow. The name "Tobacco" ought to be a giveaway. Exactly what color is that? (The filter provides a garish, warm tint in the filtered area). But the Neutral version isn't neutral. And the Blue version doesn't just effect blue tones. And so on. I've used these filters for startling effects, but never if I'm trying for the highest quality and color neutral results.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But I've seen more expensive, supposedly high quality filters that have problems, too. In general, I've moved away from Hoya and Tiffen filters and these days tend to use B&W filters, which seem more consistent in quality and less prone to unwanted optical "additions." But ask around: dedicated photographers learn to perceive the differences between a "quality" filter and one that adds unwanted side effects.

[/FONT]