What filter/filters for 28-70 f/2.8?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by LAW2, Oct 26, 2006.

  1. LAW2

    LAW2 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    JAX
    I am considering purchasing this lens. The best price I can find is $1,435. I want to get at least a UV filter to protect it from my fast moving 2-year old, but what advice would you have for brand or quality? What other filters would you recommend? I've read that a circular polarizer is what I need for outdoors and that square slide-in graduated ND filters work best so you can adjust them as needed. Sorry for so many questions but your answers are highly valued. Thanks
     
  2. Christie Photo

    Christie Photo No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,006
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    Kankakee, IL
    I suppose to give the most useful answer, more info is needed. What kind(s) of images will you be making? Portraits? Landscapes? Architecture?

    Pete
     
  3. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That is said to be a great lens...I'm sure you will love it.

    I don't know too much about UV filters. B&W is a top name in filters. Hoya is also well known.

    I definitely recommend a polarizer for outdoor photography.

    I have a Cokin square filter system. You need the filter holder and an adapter for the size of your lens threads. With that lens...you would probably need the 'P' system rather than the smaller 'A' system. I actually haven't used my Cokin filters since I switched to digital.

    That lens should come with a lens hood...it's a good idea to use it all the time. It's a solid hood, so it will also help protect the front of the lens.
     
  4. Tiberius

    Tiberius TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Nikon or Canon? (If Canon makes a 28-70....theirs may be a 24-70, I forget)

    If it's the Nikon (a fantastic lens), it takes a 77mm filter size. I'd start out with a decent UV or clear filter for protection (this has the potential to start a flame war, but since you mentioned it any way I figure it's safe) - make absolutely certain you get a multicoated one. Anything else will add more flare than you could ever imagine. After that, a good circular polarizer (Hoya HMC or Nikon Brand, B+W is also good but incredibly expensive) won't be cheap but will be a good long-term investment.

    Past that it's personal preference. If you want to try IR, get an IR filter. If you want to capture motion blur, go for a set of ND filters. Up to you.
     
  5. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wouldn't go with a slide in ND grad filters.

    You need to decide what effect you want first.
     
  6. darich

    darich TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Near Lanark, Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Canon DID do a 28-70 but it was replaced by the current 24-70 so it could be a Canon since Law2 doesn't say how old it is.

    I have the 24-70 lens and love it. I almost always have my circular polarizer on although i rarely use trhe hood, My filter was cheap - approx £24 or $45.
    i've never used a very expensive filter but i think it would be difficult to see a huge difference in the effect it has for the extra cash.

    UV filter is a good idea and so is ND but as has been said - polarizer and ND would only be useful if your photography is suited to it.
     
  7. I have this lens, and shoot without filters most of the time. There are various (recent) threads on this forum about filters that have shown me that a filter is usually a bad idea. No matter how you think about, putting a $60 piece of plastic in front of $1,500 worth of glass is not a good idea.

    I've adopted the rule to shoot without filters, unless I need a specific effect - a polarizer for instance. The only time I put on my UV is if I am shooting around water spray that might damage my lens - such as a day by the pool.

    There are some manufacturers who are quite good. I buy filters from Heliopan whenever they have a fitting product. They are VERY expensive compared to other filters, but are money well-spent.
     
  8. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    137
    I have run a pile of tests and, to make a long story short, using a UV filter to protect your lens won't have any impact on your images.

    In very rare circumstances it is theoretically possible that you can develop some flare from the use of a filter but I have yet to encounter such a circumstance. Stacking filters is a bad idea from my experience but using one filter won't hurt your images.

    The best filters are those with brass mounting rings because they do not get stuck as often as those with aluminum rings. They are all the same optically - just flat glass.
     
  9. dsp921

    dsp921 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I disagree with this. There are many levels of quality of glass, not all filters are the same optically. There's the quality of the glass itself, the manufacturing process, coatings, clarity etc to consider. All can and will affect image quality.

    If you must use a filter, don't put cheap ones on a quality lens. The Hoya UV (0) S-HMC is pretty good. I've had UV filters on my 28-70 and while the differences are slight, I can find them. Just from my personal experience. This is my free opinion, and you get what you pay for.
     
  10. LAW2

    LAW2 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    JAX
    Sorry, more information would be helpful. The primary purpose would be portraits of my 2.2 year old and 16 week old, outdoors and indoors. You know trying to capture those fleeting moments of childhood that will make you cry when they are all grown up. I got into this hobby to save $$ on "professional" pictures but this may have a bad decision. At least my wife and I are having fun with it. I also updated my signature line so you'll know what I am using.





    I guess you both are saying that digital allows you to PP to the same result as using graduated ND filters?

    Thanks to everyone who has commented. Please feel free to continue. You are my best source of real world experience.
     
  11. dsp921

    dsp921 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor is a very nice lens, I highly recommend it, mine is on the camera most of the time. Nikon announced the fall rebates and you can save $40 on that lens starting today.
    As for the filters, I wouldn't say that any filter is necessary, you can get great shots without them. Get the lens and start shooting, if you find you need specific effects then you can start to look into filters. I don't have any and I'm happy with my images.
     
  12. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    Usually very close, at least.


    But I find the color gels for lights are really hard to make in photoshop. It's easier to just byu them.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
28-70 filter
,
best nd filter for 28-70
,
canon 28-70 filter size
,
canon 28-70 what size polorizer filter
,
neutral density filter nikon 28 70
,

nikon 2.8 d 28-70 uv filter

,
size for nikon uv for 28-70mm
,
uv filter canon 28-70 3.5
,
uv filter size for nikon 28-70