OT: Duh, the filter on the camera makes a huge difference.

[Coronita]

[quote=ucodegen]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…

[/quote]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[an]

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.

[an]

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.

[an]

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.

[an]

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.

[an]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=bubble_contagion]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. [/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=bubble_contagion]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. [/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=bubble_contagion]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. [/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=bubble_contagion]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. [/quote]

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.

[Author]

Posts