 | ||||||
San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis |
||||||
~Navigation~~Current reading list~
~User login~~RSS~
|
OT: Duh, the filter on the camera makes a huge difference.User Forum Topic
Submitted by fat_lazy_union_... on October 10, 2008 - 7:49pm
Ok...I thought I'd take a break from posting about all this stuff going on the economy, because I just had an epiphany. Awhile back ago, I wanted a fast lens that could shoot in low light for my digital rebel... I bought this because I read pretty good reviews about it, and considering I wasn't a pro, I couldn't justify buying this... http://www.amazon.com/Canon-16-35mm-2-8L... Anyway, I've been pretty disappointed with it for awhile, since the pictures didn't really come out that much better than what a crap "kit" lens that came with the camera did. I was really disappointed and was about to ebay the damn thing... Then I lent this to my friend, who took a few pictures which were considerably better than mine. He mentioned to me this thing I put on front of the lens: http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-67mm-UV-Pro... was complete garbage, along with a tirade of comments about being a cheap ass asian that buys one thing because to expect better quality, then buys and complementary thing of complete garbage just to save a few bucks. He ended up recommending this: http://www.amazon.com/B-W-Violet-Coated-... Well, apparently, it made a huge difference. The former was like a big glary window pane, the later was crystal clear.... So, moral of the story...If you're gonna buy something that is already cost an arm, might as well get the complete deal, or don't get it at all. Anyway, back to the regular scheduled economic program....
|
~Finance and investing~*Investment advisory services and securities offered through Girard Securities, Inc., member SIPC/FINRA. ~Recent articles~~Active forum topics~
Sponsored Links
|
||||
| © 2004-2008 piggington enterprises llc | terms of use | privacy policy | powered by Drupal | ||||||
 |  |  | ||||
btw: if anyone wants the tiffen filter, send me a pm. It's yours for free.
Tiffen makes good filters and bad filters. The good Tamron lens uses multicoated glass. Since you describe the filter as 'glary', I think the filter you originally had was not multicoated. With the newer cameras coming in above 5Mpixel, they are more sensitive the the quality of glass that you use. Non multicoated filters will have internal reflections between the glass-air boundaries on both sides of the glass. This will soften edges slightly, reduce the sharpness and reduce the contrast of the image.
From BHphotovideo:
The filter you had
The cheapest Tiffen coated, not much more than your price
Something more expensive
Going from the clear glass to single coat makes a huge difference. To some extent, filters are a bit of a racket. There is considerably more coated glass, more expensive glass shapes and types of glass in a lens than the equivalent dollar amount of coated glass filters. Tiffen is not the least expensive for equivalent type/quality of filter. Other filter manufacturers:
Sigma, Hoya, Heliopan, B&W.
Sigma filters are hard to find, not many places seem to carry them, though when I find them, they are very good quality for the price.
Other aftermarket lens manufacturers(In order of the quality I have discovered in using them):
Sigma, Tokina, Tamron
When picking up Sigma lenses, only use the EX style, and only US market - not gray market.
NOTE: The camera manufacturer lenses by Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to have fairly good quality but I have also noted problems with some of the Nikons. I have less experience with the Canon, though I have heard good things about their 'white' lenses (and seen). Be wary of the 'kit' lenses on D-SLR cameras. They are generally not worth the money. If you look at the mount on most of them, it is a plastic mount, not a metal. These lenses are cheaply made. Buy the body only and pick a quality lens from aftermarket or from the camera manufacturer. NOTE: I don't have much experience with Olympus and Pentax lenses so I can't comment on these, though Pentax does have a good reputation going way back to the 60s.
APO lenses are always better than non-APO (APO = apochromatic). I would recommend always using an APO when going above 8Mpixel with an APSC sensor or 16Mpixel on a full-frame sensor D-SLR.
Mail order retailers that I have found to be good:
BHphotovideo
Adorama
Note: Sigma also makes a decent digital camera using a completely different sensor design (Foveon).
I hope this has been informative...
From BHphotovideo:
The filter you had
The cheapest Tiffen coated, not much more than your price
Something more expensive
Going from the clear glass to single coat makes a huge difference. To some extent, filters are a bit of a racket. There is considerably more coated glass, more expensive glass shapes and types of glass in a lens than the equivalent dollar amount of coated glass filters. Tiffen is not the least expensive for equivalent type/quality of filter. Other filter manufacturers:
Sigma, Hoya, Heliopan, B&W.
Sigma filters are hard to find, not many places seem to carry them, though when I find them, they are very good quality for the price.
Other aftermarket lens manufacturers(In order of the quality I have discovered in using them):
Sigma, Tokina, Tamron
When picking up Sigma lenses, only use the EX style, and only US market - not gray market.
NOTE: The camera manufacturer lenses by Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to have fairly good quality but I have also noted problems with some of the Nikons. I have less experience with the Canon, though I have heard good things about their 'white' lenses (and seen). Be wary of the 'kit' lenses on D-SLR cameras. They are generally not worth the money. If you look at the mount on most of them, it is a plastic mount, not a metal. These lenses are cheaply made. Buy the body only and pick a quality lens from aftermarket or from the camera manufacturer. NOTE: I don't have much experience with Olympus and Pentax lenses so I can't comment on these, though Pentax does have a good reputation going way back to the 60s.
APO lenses are always better than non-APO (APO = apochromatic). I would recommend always using an APO when going above 8Mpixel with an APSC sensor or 16Mpixel on a full-frame sensor D-SLR.
Mail order retailers that I have found to be good:
BHphotovideo
Adorama
Note: Sigma also makes a decent digital camera using a completely different sensor design (Foveon).
I hope this has been informative...
Thanks for the info. I opted to get the B&W filter. i've been pretty happy with the pictures now. I didn't think it would make such a big difference. In hindsight, the other gripe is that the tamron lense that I got won't work on full frame cameras. But I doubt I'll ever upgrade to a full frame....and i can't justify buying an equivalent L series canon lense for now.
I did get a camera with the "kit" lense. Unfortunately, I did not know better at the time...Yet for awhile i was sort of disappointed that in make cases my tamron was shooting equally crappy.
Why spend hundreds of dollars on a good lens and put an additional piece of glass in front of it? I only use polarizer filters which remove glare and reflections. Throw the UV filter away.
I've heard that the 17-50 Tamron is a good lens and well priced for a f/2.8.
If you don't already have this lens, I highly recommend it. Ever since I got this lens, I've been using it the majority of the time.
I've heard that the 17-50 Tamron is a good lens and well priced for a f/2.8.
There is a good debate on whether a UV filter helps or hurts a picture. Experts weigh in on both sides. I guess the only reason for me is that in case myself or my wife takes the lens and happens to rub it against say a rock surface, i can toss the filter without tossing the lens. I understand dropping the camera with the lens is a completely different situation in which it probably wouldn't matter with or without the filter.
Also when it comes to cleaning a lens, I'm more reluctant to clean the lens versus the filter, because again I can toss out the filter if i mess it up. And i had mess up a filter in the past before....
As far as the b&w filter, I've been happy with the result, and cant tell the difference between shooting with it on or off. The tiffen filter, on the other hand, I can.
Regarding the tamron. i was deciding between the tamron and the sigma equivalent.. I've read people had some quality control isues with the sigma, and some people had some quality control issues with the tamron. I guess i opted for the tamron because less people complained about it than others and there was a few website that said the lens was good for the money. There is some aberration and some soft focusing going on in certain cases, but I've been happy with it now with the B&w filter. And i couldn't justify spending the L series 16-35.
Two things peculiar about the lens. 1) the zoom works in the opposite direction from other canon lens. Not a big deal, just a little odd.. The other is that the autofocus is really noisy...It's not slow, just noisy. Other than that, I guess I've been pretty lucky and think I got one that doesn't have problems.
I just got another gift card from my company (bonus for some i.p. related stuff)....So, I'm in the market for a more telephoto zoom. I've been trying to figure out which one to get. I haven't read any good reviews about tamron, or sigma, so I might have to go with canon this time.
Looking for something 70-200.
I hate what canon does:
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 with Image Stabilizer, for a half an arm
Canon 70-200/f4.0L for an arm
Canon 70-200/f4.0L with Image Stabilizer for two arms
Canon 700/200/f2.8 L for an arm and a leg
Canon 700/200/f2.8 L with IS for two arms and legs
In seriousness, the only two viable ones for me are the first two. So the question is whether I.S. worth it. I would think since most things I'll be taking with this lens will be moving, IS won't be too useful. However, I'm not a stickler for buying into an L series just because L series are supposedly better....I might go the cheaper route again and stick by $8 tiffen filter on that lens initially to whine about how sh!tty the quality is, and then remove it 5 months later and be happy with the results.
You know, I thought about just getting something like this for indoor shooting at parties and such. And you can't beat the price. But right now, the tamron's doing just fine.. It's a bit bulky though.
The front element of most lenses is very strong and you can clean it with confidence. Just do not put solution directly on the lens since it is not sealed. I prefer to keep clean the lens and not the filter plus the lens.
IS will give you 2-3 stops so if your subjects are not moving it is a big advantage. I would go for this telefoto lens:
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 with Image Stabilizer, for a half an arm.
The Canon 17-80 I.S. is a good companion lens to that telephoto and has a perfect range for travel.
The L series will give you better quality but if you cannot afford them try to improve the picture quality by shooting RAW and post-processing with software like Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop.
Shoot the same picture in aperture priority at f/8 and f/2.8, if the quality is similar you have a good lens. If f/2.8 looks soft, you now know why the L series is so expensive.
The front element of most lenses is very strong and you can clean it with confidence. Just do not put solution directly on the lens since it is not sealed. I prefer to keep clean the lens and not the filter plus the lens.
Yes and no. Friends personal experience: Lens took an impact to the front, cracked the UV filter, lens good, camera/lens Nikon. It will protect from scratches and impacts as well as protect the filter threads on the lens. If you leave the UV filter on, you do not have to, or rarely have to clean the camera lens behind the filter. With filter or without filter, you clean only one surface. I always put my polarizer(or other filters) on after the UV. The UV filter is rarely removed. This is important if you tend to take your camera to locations that may not be that friendly (hiking, camping, etc). If you are largely doing studio shooting, controlled environments, there is almost no reason to have the UV filter.
NOTE: UV filters do help with better images when photographing outside in bright sunlight. The UV light can trigger some sensors even with the color filter mask that the sensors use. With film, UV tends to 'grey out' the sky. With D-SLRs, my recollection is that UV actually deepens the blue on the sky in areas where there are clouds. I would need to double check. It can be subtle and with some of the 'dynamic range and contrast' on some cameras.. tricky to detect.
NOTE: With a wide angle, I would recommend a filter with a step ring to prevent vignetting. This does create some problems with some lens hoods.
You know, I thought about just getting something like this for indoor shooting at parties and such. And you can't beat the price. But right now, the tamron's doing just fine.. It's a bit bulky though.
If you take a lot of portrait or nature shot, I highly recommend this lens. Very few lens can go down to 1.8 and most if not all cost an arm and/or a leg. At 1.8, your subject tend to "pop" more since the background will be blurry. And like you said, you can't beat the price. It's also extremely light and small, so it's really easy to carry around. @ $80-90, you don't need to waste $ on filters either. If it break, by another one :-).
You know, I thought about just getting something like this for indoor shooting at parties and such. And you can't beat the price. But right now, the tamron's doing just fine.. It's a bit bulky though.
If you take a lot of portrait or nature shot, I highly recommend this lens. Very few lens can go down to 1.8 and most if not all cost an arm and/or a leg. At 1.8, your subject tend to "pop" more since the background will be blurry. And like you said, you can't beat the price. It's also extremely light and small, so it's really easy to carry around. @ $80-90, you don't need to waste $ on filters either. If it break, by another one :-).
Are you considering getting another lens? If so, I might be interested in a trade. I got a almost new 67 tiffen filter + a 17-55 kit lens that I'd be interested in trading :)
The 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens. Spendy yes, but it's worth it. The IS does make a difference. I balked at it until I bought a lens that has it. Now I won't buy a long lens without it. depending on what you are shooting you might want to look at the 100-400 IS. I just got it and for shooting wildlife or airshows its fabulous.
B&H has decent prices but Buydig.com beats em. I've bought a ton of stuff from them over several years so don't worry about them being a Broadway Camera type outfit. They are a solid vendor. No hanky panky grey market bait a switch garbage.
If anyone has a 17-40mm they want to part with at a decent price lemme know.
Are you considering getting another lens? If so, I might be interested in a trade. I got a almost new 67 tiffen filter + a 17-55 kit lens that I'd be interested in trading :)
I am considering getting another lens eventually. The lens I'm eying is theCanon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM . I'm confused, are you talking about this 17-55 or the 18-55mm kit lens.
Oops. I meant the 18-55 kit lens. my bad :)
There was comparison between the efs 17-55 2.8 to the tamron 17-50. The tamron supposedly is sharper, but again it doesn't have IS.
I only use polarizer filters which remove glare and reflections.
Same here. Shoot in RAW mode and take care of the rest later, instead of using a UV filter.
Backpacking through Europe was first time my using the polarizing filters. What a difference!
Inside the train going through the Swiss Alps, windows covered with reflections...but the polarizing filter knocks those reflections off the windows.
Later outside the train, shooting Swiss Alp peaks against a blue-sky spattered with puffy white clouds. The polarizer makes the clouds "pop out" from the blue sky. Really nice effect.
You know what AMAZES me? How many stupid Americans carrying around digital SLR costing over $1000 (just for the body)....yet watch them take five photos and realize they are CLUELESS on the very basics of photography. (They need to spend $100 on a photog class at their local community college instead of spening $1,000 for an SLR body)
A CLASSIC retard move I saw one thousand expensive-SLR carrying tourists make: position their family member before a backdrop of incredibly bright sunlit snow or clouds yet the subject has shadows on their face, then shoot without fill-flash. "Gosh Martha, why them faces all black in our photos? That snow look real good though."
Ok so after today.
Oil and dust on filter 1: FLU 0
Grr.. So my daughter did a nice thing today at a party. She decided to stick a cantalope right smack in the middle of my new filter. Then as I took it off and placed in to the table to clean it, she decided to pick it up and stick it in her mouth. Ah yes, little ones do interesting things.
Now, I'm trying to get this damn filter clean.. I tried to use a dust brush, then some lense tissue with a cleaner, and there are still fine speck. I was sort of worried that perhaps i scratched it, or I should say my daughter because as I was dusting it, she took the duster and started to poke the filter with the brush's bristles, but I'm told the dust brush can't usually chip a lens filter. Anyway, i can't seem to get these small little specks off. Oh well, perhaps i should stick to a point and shoot.
Same here. Shoot in RAW mode and take care of the rest later, instead of using a UV filter.
Backpacking through Europe was first time my using the polarizing filters. What a difference!
Inside the train going through the Swiss Alps, windows covered with reflections...but the polarizing filter knocks those reflections off the windows.
Later outside the train, shooting Swiss Alp peaks against a blue-sky spattered with puffy white clouds. The polarizer makes the clouds "pop out" from the blue sky. Really nice effect.
You know what AMAZES me? How many stupid Americans carrying around digital SLR costing over $1000 (just for the body)....yet watch them take five photos and realize they are CLUELESS on the very basics of photography. (They need to spend $100 on a photog class at their local community college instead of spening $1,000 for an SLR body)
A CLASSIC retard move I saw one thousand expensive-SLR carrying tourists make: position their family member before a backdrop of incredibly bright sunlit snow or clouds yet the subject has shadows on their face, then shoot without fill-flash. "Gosh Martha, why them faces all black in our photos? That snow look real good though."
Um, with all due respect..I see a lot more overseas asians in this category than americans.
What drives me crazy is seeing a Canon 5D or such with a crappy lens. Not that I would know want to do with anything beyond a digital rebel.
How old is your daughter.. is she teething? If she bit down, she could damage the filters coating.
I have tried cleaners and found that they all seem to leave a little bit of a film (bright light at an angle, bouncing the light at an orientation with equal incident and reflective light reveals the film). Distilled water is better, the best that I have found is reverse osmosis water (which is what integrated circuit manufactures use to clean things with). I tend to use cotton swabs (no paper - paper can be harder than some coatings). I rinse by dribbling the reverse osmosis water at an angle so it runs off the filter, using the surface tension of the water to 'dry' the filter. There is a small amount at the bottom corner afterwords, which I pick up with a dry cotton swab. I don't immediately put the filter on afterwords.. I put the filter in a safe non dusty place to dry for a few hours.
Better she poked the filter than the lens..