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

[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=asianautica]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.[/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica]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.[/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica]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.[/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica]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.[/quote]

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=asianautica]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.[/quote]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[bubble_contagion]

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.

[ucodegen]

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.

[ucodegen]

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.

[ucodegen]

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.

[ucodegen]

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.

[Author]

Posts