Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released! |
Doing a quick check of a high quality circular polarizer, the price difference I saw between a 77mm and 82mm sized filter is $66. (That is for a very high end filter from a very well-regarded brand. For a medium-level filter, the difference was $32.)
If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500, I have a hard time understanding how spending an extra $66 could be so much of an issue.
My opinion is if an 82mm filter is what it takes to get the maximum image quality, then so be it
This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.
Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?
If the burden of an extra few grams to carry two polarizers is too much, you can also get a step-down ring and leave the smaller polarizer at home (or sell it). If that step down ring is too burdensome to carry...well...then it'd be hard to imagine you'd not be overburdened already by multiple lenses.
And finally, there are some who also have multiple lenses with 82mm threads. (For example my two most-used lenses right now both have 82mm threads).
People are making a pretty big deal about this for some reason. See my other response above, stated the obvious that apparently wasn't so obvious
Try this...you have 77mm lenses already (70-200, 17-40, etc), you are thinking about 24-70 f4 vs f2.8. Total cost would be $2300+new 82mm filters ($2500) vs $1500 and no new filters.