Time to ask the pros for advice ...

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end

Archive 2011 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #1 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

dortizphoto wrote:
... justifying my (what I know consider and feel guilty about) purchase of this 50. Heck, I could probably have picked up a nice soft box for the price I paid for ths lens.

Probably, yes. OTOH, the soft box can't do f/1.4, nor can the 24-70L.

Jan 01, 2012 at 04:06 PM

goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

InternetJunky wrote:
I'm always curious what sort of trauma people believe their filters will save their lens from. Chances are that if something is hitting your lens hard enough to damage the front element, some thin little piece of glass in front isn't going to stop anything. In fact, I imagine there are a lot of scenarios where the shattering filter will do more damage to the front element than whatever is breaking the filter.

here's my 24-105 that was saved by a hoya pro1d

This image is copyrighted by the owner

no damage to the lens itself at all. it would have probably cost me as much to ship it to and from canon than it did to replace the filter. i bought another one before i even got this one off the front of the lens.

i also have the 50 1.4 and keep a good hoya mrc on it. i used to keep a cheap filter on it, but i got tons of ghosting at night. a good filter got rid of that. in the 2% of the time i'm shooting where the good filter would be detrimental, i just take it off.

Jan 01, 2012 at 04:29 PM

dortizphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

@ JC: I get the point, well taken. ;-)
@Goose: Yikes!! I'm sold my friend, I'm sold.

Dave

Jan 01, 2012 at 04:39 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #4 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

InternetJunky wrote:
I'm always curious what sort of trauma people believe their filters will save their lens from. Chances are that if something is hitting your lens hard enough to damage the front element, some thin little piece of glass in front isn't going to stop anything. In fact, I imagine there are a lot of scenarios where the shattering filter will do more damage to the front element than whatever is breaking the filter.

goosemang wrote:
here's my 24-105 that was saved by a hoya pro1d

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Jan 01, 2012 at 04:46 PM

dortizphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #5 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

If it was a projectile that did this, I doubt a hood would have saved him. He's right though, I'd rather my filter look that way than the front element of my $1,500 lens.

Jan 01, 2012 at 04:54 PM

goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

hi

yes, had the hood on. i was shooting in a manufacturing facility, had it hanging on my shoulder and was backing up to get out of the way of a worker. backed it right into this thin protruding metal bar. almost had a heart attack when i first saw it

i mean i can understand shooting without it, and that's cool if people want to. i guess it depends what your priorities are w/r/t your photographs. for me, whatever IQ trade off may exist is worth it for the protection. i mean if i was shooting on a tripod at night with minimal chance of issues, yeah, i'd probably leave it off. but i've got my camera hanging on my shoulder a lot of the time, and while i love hoods for protection against most "bump and grind", i stick with the filter too

Jan 01, 2012 at 05:06 PM

goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

also, they're good for keeping beer off your front element

trust me

Jan 01, 2012 at 05:07 PM

gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

dortizphoto wrote:
I wasn't so much interested in protection as opposed to preventing flare, and increasing image quality.

A filter will have, at best, the opposite effect than that which you are looking for. I cannot make things better. In the best case it will not produce any visible degradation. In some cases it can have negative effects.

David Baldwin wrote:
If you have a look at most photographers unprotected front elements after a year or two you can usually see that the coatings have been smeared and degraded by "cleaning".

As someone with a bag full of lenses that are almost all older than a "year or two" and which get rather substantial use...

... I have to call "nonsense" on that one. :-)

Unless someone is obsessively unnecessarily "cleaning" their lens way too much. And perhaps with sandpaper. Or steel wool. ;-)

dortizphoto wrote:
I read somewhere -- (can't remember where, wish I did), that the optics/image quality are FAR better on a prime lens than the zoom lens -- even if it's a regular prime vs. an L class lens -- the prime will always win out.

That notion deserves some comment. A prime can be "better" (e.g. better resolution, a bit more contrast, etc.) than a zoom in some cases, particularly if you shoot at the largest aperture of the zoom. But...

- the advantage is small to the point of insignificance in some specific lens comparisons.
- the advantage, to the extent it exists, diminishes as you stop down.
- the improvement probably only matters if you are a very careful shooter - e.g. tripod and remote release and very careful focus.
- if you can crop in camera with a zoom as opposed to cropping in post with a shot made with your prime, the advantage diminishes, disappears, or even reverses.
- the increment of improved resolution, when it exists, is quite small - and you will never see it in anything but a fairly large and well-made print.
- there are other factors that are not trivial - such as the ability to flexibly respond to a variety of shooting situations

"Better" is better if it actually makes a positive difference in your photography. (BTW, I use primes and zooms - five of one and four of the other.)

dortizphoto wrote:
If it was a projectile that did this, I doubt a hood would have saved him. He's right though, I'd rather my filter look that way than the front element of my $1,500 lens.

Understandable. But have you priced the cost of replacing a front element? It isn't as much as most people imagine. Given the low odds of actually suffering a broken front element (and not also damaging the lens at the same time in other ways that the filter could not possibly stop), it is probably a better insurance bet to save your money and pay for the repair in the unlikely event that it happens.

Finally: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not

Dan

Edited on Jan 01, 2012 at 05:25 PM · View previous versions

Jan 01, 2012 at 05:08 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #9 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

Dave -- Thanks for your response.

Yes, your thread has a lot of elements in it outside of the filter topic. I understand -- many of my topics have a way of meandering into related areas of interest, anchored by a central point. Yours being the 50mm and portability.

Regarding versatility: I completely agree about the 24-70. On one hand, it is the most versatile and most used lens in my collection. On the other, as you say, it is rather obnoxiously large and uncomfortable to wheel around all day on a 1D-series body (or any larger body with grip like 60D or 5D2). I've been using the 35-350 a lot lately, and it makes the 1D/24-70 combo seem relatively dainty!

One of my favorite combos for personal interest is the 1D2 with EF 50/2.5 Macro (or Zeiss Contax 50/1.4) -- essentially the same set-up as you are using.

To increase the 50's versatility, everyone knows that it can easily be cropped to simulate up to the 70mm of the zoom. The wide end is usually considered more of an obstacle, but you shouldn't overlook using the lens to make careful panoramas or multi-row composite images -- even handheld if you are very careful. In that way, in a few moments of shooting in RAW with manual settings and fixed focus, you can easily achieve images even wider than 24mm. IQ and rez are out the roof on composite images.

So, I salute you in your quest for light-weight high-IQ!

But I also predict you won't give up on your 24-70 any time soon! I haven't.

goose -- Yes, I can certainly relate! I get into those sorts of industrial (and even crawling around the landscape for architectural shots) potential accidents. As I've said, I've never had a catastrophe that did damage to my lens, but I've had the filter marred a couple times running into sharp metallic objects and tree branches. And beer!. . . you and I must have parallel lives!

Jan 01, 2012 at 05:23 PM

KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #10 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's my 24-105 that was saved by a hoya pro1d

This image is copyrighted by the owner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know your lens would have been damaged without the filter? Do you have any idea just how tough the front elements of most lenses, even the cheap ones, are? I don't see how people can claim a filter "saved" their lens, when in reality, it just looks that way. Of course the single piece of glass is going to shatter, it doesn't mean the front element would.

I seriously recommend the OP and everyone else watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

Now, that's one of the cheapest lenses Canon makes, and its relatively fine considering what it went through.

I've said it before with the filter debate and I'll say it again. For the price of filters these days, you are very likely to be much better off if you just buy an insurance policy instead. A good policy costs peanuts ($80-$100 or less per year) and it covers ten times the amount of money. A $80 a year policy will usually cover at least $6,000-$10,000. Additionally, a good insurance policy usually covers everything under the sun, from theft to drops and falls, to water damage, and even your own stupidity (insert stupid situation here) In other words, for the same amount of money, and more than likely less money, you can have insurance coverage for all of your lenses, that will completely replace the lens or pay for repair (likely to just replace with the cost of repairs these days), instead of dealing with a shattered filter, bent filter ring, scratched front element from the glass shards hitting it, etc...

Jan 01, 2012 at 05:38 PM

dortizphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

Thanks for the feedback and the valuable link relative to using the filter. As I've seen, many are against it, and it seems those who use them are in the minority. I personally, haven't seen a degradation of IQ with one on, so I'll keep shooting with them until I come across a reason not to.

Since we have so many trained folks here, with vast knowledge .. can someone/anyone provide a link to explain the fundamentals of DOF? For the life of me I've always had an issue "fully" comprehending this portion of our art.

For example, notice here I stopped down that 50mm prime from f/1.4 to to whopping f/3.2, and YET because of my distance-to-subject rule, the DOF is still quite shallow. errrrrrrr!!

Dave

Reflector on right side, reflecting window lighting using the 50mm f/1.4 prime WITH Hoya filter attached.
Canon EOS-1D Mark III 50 mm f/3.2 1/80 sec 400 ISO 0.0 EV

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:06 PM

BrianO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #12 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

dortizphoto wrote: ...The only reason I purchased the Canon 50 mm prime is because my 1D3 with the 24-70 attached is not only HUGE but also quite heavy. ...The camera sits in my bag until until my next assignment because it's too much camera with that lens to lug around "all the time." ...the 50mm was a foolish purchase since I already cover that range with my 24-70.

Ah, but covering the range with a camera left at home isn't as good as having a more-limited range on a camera that's with you. I don't think it was a "foolish" purchase at all.

dortizphoto wrote: ...I'm also not certain the 50 would have performed as well as the 24-70 in low light conditions focus wise.

Since the wide-open aperture of the 50 is two stops brighter than the 24-70, allowing more light to reach the AF sensor, don't you think it would focus better in low light? The view through the finder will also be two stops brighter. I would think you would find it easier to compose your shots in low light with a brighter view.

Again, not a foolish purchase. A good point-and-shoot camera might have worked, too, as far as being smaller and lighter, but the image quality wouldn't be as good.

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:20 PM

goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

perhaps this would help, re: dof

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:20 PM

goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

KibblesNbitz wrote:

How do you know your lens would have been damaged without the filter? Do you have any idea just how tough the front elements of most lenses, even the cheap ones, are? I don't see how people can claim a filter "saved" their lens, when in reality, it just looks that way. Of course the single piece of glass is going to shatter, it doesn't mean the front element would.

well, this is a bit like wearing your seatbelt and getting into an accident, walking away unscathed and then saying you can't prove the seatbelt made any difference. sure, we'll never know, but do you want to take the chance?

re: insurance, can you advise where i can get a policy that covers all my gear in the case of accident? i've insured it through my homeowners, and it's very inexpensive, but it only covers theft. doesn't cover it if i fall off a bridge and deep six my camera

unless you're referring to buying the extended warranties that cover accident, but it's too late for me to get those on my lenses, i believe

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:24 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #15 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

dortizphoto wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and the valuable link relative to using the filter. As I've seen, many are against it, and it seems those who use them are in the minority. I personally, haven't seen a degradation of IQ with one on, so I'll keep shooting with them until I come across a reason not to.

Really fine with us. But again, you said you wanted an improvement from the filters, not protection. I think you came here not asking if to buy a filter or not; rather, you already had a filter (or two to be precise) and now are just looking to validate your decision. Which, if you were looking for an improvement simply can't be had, and even if you were looking just for protection it's a wash at best.

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:31 PM

BrianO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #16 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

dortizphoto wrote: ...can someone/anyone provide a link to explain the fundamentals of DOF? For the life of me I've always had an issue "fully" comprehending this portion of our art. ...For example, notice here I stopped down that 50mm prime from f/1.4 to to whopping f/3.2, and YET because of my distance-to-subject rule, the DOF is still quite shallow. errrrrrrr!!

What's wrong with shallow DoF? In this case, I think it looks great!

In addition to the link provided by goosemang, you might also find this useful:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:36 PM

BrianO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #17 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

goosemang wrote: re: insurance, can you advise where i can get a policy that covers all my gear in the case of accident? i've insured it through my homeowners, and it's very inexpensive, but it only covers theft. doesn't cover it if i fall off a bridge and deep six my camera

Talk to your insurance agent. You should be able to get coverage for accidental damage and loss, either with a rider or with a seperate policy.

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:41 PM

KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #18 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

goosemang wrote:
KibblesNbitz wrote:

How do you know your lens would have been damaged without the filter? Do you have any idea just how tough the front elements of most lenses, even the cheap ones, are? I don't see how people can claim a filter "saved" their lens, when in reality, it just looks that way. Of course the single piece of glass is going to shatter, it doesn't mean the front element would.

well, this is a bit like wearing your seatbelt and getting into an accident, walking away unscathed and then saying you can't prove the seatbelt made any difference. sure, we'll never know, but do you want to take the chance?

re: insurance, can you advise where i can get a policy that covers all my gear in the case of accident? i've insured it through my homeowners, and it's very inexpensive, but it only covers theft. doesn't cover it if i fall off a bridge and deep six my camera

unless you're referring to buying the extended warranties that cover accident, but it's too late for me to get those on my lenses, i believe

You can pretty much call up any insurance company and get that type of policy. Some call it a personal articles policy, others have other names. State Farm and Hill & Usher seem to be the favorites if I remember correctly. Working pro's usually use insurance through the PPA, but that wont help if you're not a pro. You may have to specify that you want "all perils" or "all hazards" covered, and you may have to pay extra, but from what I remember most of the personal articles policies are all perils save for a few very specific things (such as acts of war, which no insurance company usually covers) and even if you did have to pay extra, it wouldn't be much.

I understand you have a policy for theft through your homeowners, but if I may offer a word of caution, that may not be the best idea. I would much prefer to use a company separate from my homeowners/auto due to the fact that if you have to make a claim for camera gear, they may very well drop your home/auto policy. The risk is especially big when you have expensive gear or a lot of it, as the large hit the insurance company takes may cause them to drop you. I've heard of it happening before, and it can be a real drag, especially if you're getting a good rate on your homeowners/auto, only to be dropped because of a camera gear claim.

Jan 01, 2012 at 06:50 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #19 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

Stan -- I completely agree -- any non-FX filter will at best be a wash on IQ -- no improvement to IQ.

Kibbles -- If you can give specs on a commercial policy at those rates, I'd love to hear about it! I insured my gear in the early 90s, and found it excessively expensive. It cost around $400-500 per year at that time to insure camera gear to the value of $20,000 as a commercial photographer (or was it $60 per $1000 = $900?). After two or three years without a claim, and having gone uninsured for over ten years prior without a loss, I saw it as a foolish practice (for me). I could buy a good lens every two or three years for that money. I've still never had a theft, loss, or damaged a piece of gear beyond a simple repair (and that very infrequent). I'd rather invest in a good gun safe -- and guns!

Jan 01, 2012 at 07:06 PM

KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #20 · Time to ask the pros for advice ...

Gunzorro wrote:
Stan -- I completely agree -- any non-FX filter will at best be a wash on IQ -- no improvement to IQ.

Kibbles -- If you can give specs on a commercial policy at those rates, I'd love to hear about it! I insured my gear in the early 90s, and found it excessively expensive. It cost around $400-500 per year at that time to insure camera gear to the value of $20,000 as a commercial photographer (or was it $60 per $1000 = $900?). After two or three years without a claim, and having gone uninsured for over ten years prior without a loss, I saw it as a foolish practice (for me). I could buy a good lens every two or three years for that money. I've still never had a theft, loss, or damaged a piece of gear beyond a simple repair (and that very infrequent). I'd rather invest in a good gun safe -- and guns!

Ah, that's a caveat. The policy rates are much different when using it commercially or as a professional photographer. The rates I was talking about were for hobbyists and non-professionals, like I assumed the OP was (or semi pro maybe? Not sure if the OP is paid for these assignments or what...)

Nevertheless, the pro rates may have changed by now. Doesn't hurt to give an insurance company a call and ask...

The need for an insurance policy if you're a professional depends greatly on what kind of professional photographer you are. Portraits, eh, not so much. Weddings? Wouldn't be caught without insurance when doing wedding photography, or sports or wildlife...

Jan 01, 2012 at 07:15 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end