I just ordered a Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime for my Canon 1Dmk3 which took some getting over since I felt guilty about it. Well, now I'm faced with another dilemma ... which filter to put on that lens. I plan to keep this lens on the body 99.5% of the time and I want to project it, but at the same time don't want something in front of it that will jeopardize image quality.
That being said, I believe I thought too quickly and was sold on the "Hoya" product so I ordered a 58mm filter. The following one to be exact ...
No filter. Putting a cheap filter on it will jeopardize the quality, and putting a pricy protective filter on such a cheap lens is not very productive.
Well, I'd like some protection on the lens. I did order the hood for it, but felt adding a filter would help with protection, haze, color, etc. Maybe I'm wrong?
OK, so I should send that Hoya back then since I paid for it and will arrive Friday. What about for my other two canon lenses. 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L ... should I invest in the higher end filter for those?
Why would you want to keep the 50mm f/4 on 99.5% of the time when you own two other great lenses? Do you really want to limit yourself to one focal lenght?
On the filter question - I would only use one in nasty situations. Otherwise the hood provides plenty of protection.
Hello Jerry - I find the 24-70 is a beast to walk around with. Tack on the 1Dmk3 and I'm walking around with a brick. The result is I leave the camera in the bag more than I should. Yes, the 50mm I just ordered is a cheap lens, but it's also small, light and will force me to not only use the camera more, but experiment and become proficient with DOF calculations which has always been a challenge for me.
I recently purchased the same lens and I have a very cheap filter on it just some no name. On my 'expensive' L lenses I spent more for good Canon and Hoya clear filters. I know many have strong opinions on this board and others regarding the need for filters. I use them to provide some level of protection from scratches or dirt. I thinks its more peace of mind than anything else as I am doubtful they would provide any significant impact protection. IMHO unless you are blowing up images or doing no post processing what so ever it is unlikely you would see a significant degradation in image quality. At least not enough for my old eyes to notice. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable I like my 50 1.4 and think its a great alternate walk around lens for my 7D and especially my 1D Mk IIn. Good luck with the new lens and I hope it allows you to get that camera out of the bag more often.
I'm not really going to go on a crusade for or against UV filters, but I don't use them on any of my gear unless I know I'm shooting in conditions where lots of water or sand is definitely going to hit the lens.
I guess some people like them to help with dust intake on certain lenses, but dust has never bothered me nor have I had it affect a photo.
CPOL, sure, GND, sure, but UV - meh. I just use the lens hood.
svassh wrote:
IMHO unless you are blowing up images or doing no post processing what so ever it is unlikely you would see a significant degradation in image quality. At least not enough for my old eyes to notice.
Next time you have a few spare minutes, take a picture of your house at night. Or just the street lamp, in such a way that it's off center. You'll end up with two - one exactly opposite, upside down. That's what the filter did.
This is one issue that I feel very strongly about. I never use uv filters. Total waste of money, and as Stan points out major issues can occur in certain situations.
The 50 1.4 is a fine optic. Do not mask it. Just my .02
...remember the thread a few years ago where the OP was convinced he had photographed a green ghost? It took about a hundred pages before somebody asked the OP if he had a "protective filter" on the lens, and another 500 pages before the OP was convinced to remove the filter.
Lens cap and hood are all you need to ward off ghosts...
stanj wrote:
Next time you have a few spare minutes, take a picture of your house at night. Or just the street lamp, in such a way that it's off center. You'll end up with two - one exactly opposite, upside down. That's what the filter did.
This.
I used to say that while I understand my filter may in theory change image quality, I've never seen it in practice.
Then I dd some long exposure night photography. Changed my views in one ruined outting.
Look at the front of your filter. Glass is flat. Look at your lens, more than likely it's not. Do you think the filter was made to the same exacting specifications that a high precision lens element is? I think not.
Don't put bad money on a good lens. Besides, what are you protecting it from? If it is rain/snow/blood of the non-believers, the lens isn't weather sealed.
There's in my mind, no reason other than actual protection from real environmental conditions to use a filter. Creative filters not withstanding.
