Kirivon
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #20 · Time to ask the pros for advice ... | |
stanj wrote:
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. I borrowed someone's D80 once and they had a 50mm with a UV filter on it. I've never used filters so imagine my dismay when I reviewed my shots and found half of them ruined by flare.
I can see maybe using a filter if you're using a 50L that isn't completely sealed without one and shooting in a typhoon or hurricane. But a EF50? The focus ring is so sloppy you could probably get grains of rice inside that lens if you tried hard enough. That and the front element is relatively small and deeply recessed from the front filter anyway. Even without the hood, unless you're using your lens as a hammer I don't see how anything is going to touch the front element; not that it matters, though, damage to the front element has negligible effects on image quality anyway.
Maybe if you're using something like a 135L that a large, vulnerable front element it would make more sense.. but you should really be using a hood in the first place. That being said I do enjoy buying used glass from people who say, "protected by a UV filter since day one." There are two types of people: those who regard their gear as tools and don't go out of their way to baby it, and those who regard their gear as collectibles. I consider myself the former, but I prefer to buy from the latter if given a chance..
Rick Schump wrote:
I'm sold on filters. I shoot landscape, usually around rivers and lakes, a CPL lives on my lens 95% of the time. The $250. filter (ouch ) has saved my 16 - 35 and my 24 - 105. Rocks can be slippery when wet . Rick
Here's one thing I've noticed. I've seen a lot of posts of broken filters where the user says, "the filter saved my lens!" Not to disagree with your statement specifically, it just reminded me. I've very rarely ever seen someone actually break their front element, but I've seen lots and lots of broken filters. My hypothesis is that the filters are actually more fragile and shatter on impact where the lens otherwise would have been fine; thus actually exposing the lens to more risk due to the broken shards of glass.
dortizphoto wrote:
Well, the verdict is in. Not so much how the lens optics are or how it behaved without the filter. I took a brief "snap shot" after we finished having dinner this evening as I wanted to try f/1.4 ISO200 and 1/100th to see what I would get. The filter was on, and one snap went off.
Clearly I can see a bluish glow around the blown lights, and (at least to me) the image appears kinda soft. However, I won't give up on it just yet as I know this lens takes some getting use to. One plus to all this, my 1Dmk3 is FAR LIGHTER and has a significantly smaller footprint than tugging it around with the 24-70 f/2.8L attached.
Tomorrow, I will put this lens/filter to the test. I have three photojournalist assignments (two at night, one during the day) for me to test and practice using this lens.
In the meantime, if anyone would like to generously offer a few tips/advice on shooting with this lens and a 1.3 crop body, I'd certainly welcome and humbly appreciate your feedback.
Cheers!
Dave
The bluish glow is more likely just inherent fringing than anything else due to shooting wide open. Similarly, the softness also has nothing to do with the filter--most any lens with that wide of an aperture is going to be soft wide open. Stop it down to at least f/1.8-2 rather than using it wide open and you'll find the performance significantly better. Stop it down to f/4 and it will be as sharp/sharper than anything in Canon's lineup.
|
Hell, how one can be happy without? ... 
