$350-$400 Lens?

[07Vios]

I was going to say the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens. It's my everyday lens, and love it. I also have the Canon 85mm f1.8. While a great lens to do portraits and a somewhat medium telephoto lens, I wouldn't say it's usable for an everyday lens as 85mm on a cropped body is rather zoomed in for street photography imo.

 

[sactown024]

Ditch the filter man and buy a lens hood. Why put a 10 dollar piece of junk filter on a nice lens?

I have a hood too, you can use both

 

[Big Mike]

Ditch the filter man and buy a lens hood. Why put a 10 dollar piece of junk filter on a nice lens?

The guy was rich, it's probably a $100 filter.

 

[sactown024]

Ditch the filter man and buy a lens hood. Why put a 10 dollar piece of junk filter on a nice lens?

The guy was rich, it's probably a $100 filter.

He told me he paid $40 for the filter

 

[Big Mike]

Tamron 28-75 2.8. Probably the best bang-for-the-buck lens I've ever used, both on DX and FX cameras.

Yours must be a lot better than mine. Mine is terribly soft at F2.8, it's practically unusable. I'm very disappointed after using and loving the 17-50mm for several years.

 

[invisible]

Tamron 28-75 2.8. Probably the best bang-for-the-buck lens I've ever used, both on DX and FX cameras.

Yours must be a lot better than mine. Mine is terribly soft at F2.8, it's practically unusable. I'm very disappointed after using and loving the 17-50mm for several years.

I only sold mine because a very minty and very cheap used Nikon 24-70 came my way. The difference in sharpness between the two lenses was almost negligible, the main difference being the vignetting at f/2.8. I guess quality control at Tamron is not super awesome, so quality can vary from copy to copy...

 

[pixmedic]

We love our tamron 17-50 and 28-75. Never had an issue with either. Maybe we just got lucky, i dont know.

 

[JAC526]

Ditch the filter man and buy a lens hood. Why put a 10 dollar piece of junk filter on a nice lens?

The guy was rich, it's probably a $100 filter.

Ditch the filter man and buy a lens hood. Why put a 10 dollar piece of junk filter on a nice lens?

The guy was rich, it's probably a $100 filter.

He told me he paid $40 for the filter

I'm just anti-UV filter in general. But opinions are like *******s.

 

[Big Mike]

I'm just anti-UV filter in general.

Ya, me too.

 

[kbialick]

I just picked up a tamron 28-75 myself and it's great, sharp, and no focus issues .... I heard there QC on them was pretty bad, but any third party can be like that. Congrats on the purchase though it's always nice to get a good deal and it actually work properly

 

[sactown024]

I'm just anti-UV filter in general.

Ya, me too.

why?

 

[Big Mike]

Firstly, digital cameras aren't sensitive to UV light like film is. So while a UV filter can help take out some 'UV Haze' in film photos...it doesn't do anything like that for digital cameras.

Secondly, filters contribute to (or outright cause) lens flare. Sometimes that means getting those lens flare spots in the photo, but often it's just an overall loss of contrast and image quality. The higher quality filters will have multiple coatings on them, to help prevent this...but they get to be pretty expensive for the minimal benefit they provide.

So really, the only benefit they provide is physical protection. I typically use hard lens hoods, so the front of the lens is protected from most bangs/scuffs etc.

 

[sactown024]

I use it strickly for protection, a friend of mine dropped her lens and shattered the uv filter, if it wasnt for that her 24-70L would have been toast

 

[JAC526]

Firstly, digital cameras aren't sensitive to UV light like film is. So while a UV filter can help take out some 'UV Haze' in film photos...it doesn't do anything like that for digital cameras.

Secondly, filters contribute to (or outright cause) lens flare. Sometimes that means getting those lens flare spots in the photo, but often it's just an overall loss of contrast and image quality. The higher quality filters will have multiple coatings on them, to help prevent this...but they get to be pretty expensive for the minimal benefit they provide.

So really, the only benefit they provide is physical protection. I typically use hard lens hoods, so the front of the lens is protected from most bangs/scuffs etc.

He answered better than me. If your friend had a lens hood on the same thing likely would of happened.

 

[Big Mike]

I use it strickly for protection, a friend of mine dropped her lens and shattered the uv filter, if it wasnt for that her 24-70L would have been toast

Ya, that's the typical reason....and it's hard to argue against it. But I would say that we'll never know if that fall would have damaged the 24-70mm or not. Sure the filter was shattered, but filters aren't built to the same standards as L lenses.

I too have dropped a lens and shattered a filter...but rather than using filters on all my lenses (and just living with the lower image quality)...I take greater care with my gear and try not to drop them. Sure, I'll probably drop a lens and damage it someday (knock on wood)...but that's still a better option than purposely lowering my image quality...IMO.