Kirivon that was most informative - thank you. Guys, I put the filter on because I paid for it and figured I'd give it a try. Tomorrow I'll be shooting without it. I intend to put this lens (some consider it good, others not so good) to the test. The main reason it was purchased was for its small size and weight. Whether it comes with added benefits remains to be seen.
If you're worried about weight and you only use your 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L a mere 0.5% of the time, I'd sell them along with the 1DIII, buy a 60D or 7D, and you'd have money left over for the most expensive 'protective' filter there is, in addition to ample money to replace the 50/1.4 several times over.
In all seriousness, though, the 'cheap filter on an expensive lens, expensive filter on a cheap lens' argument is pretty much spot on. Why bother? A hood will serve as physical protection most of the time, and odds are if you drop it hard enough to break the fllter, the filter threads may be trashed, filter ring stuck on the lens, etc.
Re: image quality, test for yourself: take a night shot with some very bright specular highlights in the image (i.e. bright lights), and look for mirror-image ghosting, reversed in both axes. If you get these ghost images of the specular highlights, you can bet the filter is also decreasing contrast. Whether you're able to notice the reduction in contrast in your pictures is another matter.
Thanks Jeff. I can send the filter back to BH or lose the $36.00 I paid for it - no biggie. I'll test this 50 tomorrow when I have more light and at night with my flash.
Great discussion. Everyone has good points of view that works for them. In the end do what works best for you.
I typically do not put a filter on for the purpose of lens protection. Nor do I depend on the hood for protection either.
Why no UV filter?
The type of shooting I do would require constant removal of the filter before taking a picture.
I focus mainly on scenics, wildlife, vegetation, macro, infrared and ultraviolet.
I only add a UV filter if severe conditions require front element protection or if there is a lot of blue light in the shade.
Why no UV filter
If I add a filter it is usually one of my many types of CPL filters (KSM, Blue/Yellow, Warming, Warming/Vari ND CPL), Vari ND filter or I am using my Lee Filter System.
Shooting IR on my full spectrum camera I have many IR filters that cut at differing wavelengths.
Shooting UV I want to eliminate all wavelengths that are not UV wavelength light. A UV filter would eliminate the very UV lightwaves I am trying to capture.
Shooting B&W I will often go traditional and use my Kodak wrattens or Yellow/Red/Green filters. And yes I know I can add these filters in post processing in Photoshop or use in camera settings but its just my method of doing it. I do use in camera settings and Photoshop when I want.
Why no hood?
Using a CPL or Vari ND is not the easiest to work with when the hood is attached.
When using the Lee Filter system I have to remove the hood its in the way. Unless I am moving a very short distance I always disasemble the system and put it all away before moving on. I dont put the hood back on, just the lens cap, gives me ample protection.
If a light source (like the sun) is in a position that will cause lens flare, I will use my hand, something handy to block that light source from flaring the lens, or change position.
If I am shooting unfiltered I will attach the hood.
In the end do what works best for you. For myself I often have some type of filter on them, but not for the purpose of protection but rather for the purpose of enhancing the image capture. If a filter has no benefit to the image or it is unfeasable to use a filter I go filterless. Same goes for the hood if it is of benefit and not hinderance it is used.
dortizphoto wrote:
Sorry to be a pest guys ... but I re-installed the filter for testing purposes. Same subject, same settings, same distance -- #1 WITHOUT the filer and #2 WITH the filter.
Can anyone with a better trained eye than I can only hope for ... see any difference? I certainly can't.
Cheers!
Dave
There is a difference. you repositioned the camera between the two shots. The OOF background areas are not the same or you cropped them differently.
This is a topic which has been debated here ad nauseum.
Speaking personally i rarely use them. And i don't even have one for my 50mm f/1.4 because the front element is well enough recessed to protect it from everyday dangers, and protecting it from spray and sand is completely pointless when it will easily penetrate the barrel and bugger the AF mechanism anyway.
burningheart wroteThere is a difference. you repositioned the camera between the two shots. The OOF background areas are not the same or you cropped them differently. I lowered the camera to attach the filter then reshot the doll's head. That being said, If you look along the right side of her face (our left) and follow the line of her face, it seems to me there's some kind of haze/fuzzy glow on the image WITHOUT the filter. However, the one with the filter (#2) appears to have it less. Unless of course it's because I recomposed the angle and it looks a tad better (on my iPhone) at least. Confused.
Does anyone else see this?
I will shoot a chrisas tree this evening and see what I get.
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.
dortizphoto wrote:
I wasn't so much interested in protection as opposed to preventing flare, and increasing image quality.
Then you definitely don't want to use a filter.
Each glass surface that you introduce into the light path is a potential source of flare and scatter.
Filters are best used, in my opion, only when there is a specific need for them, such as color-correction, polarization, light reduction (neutral density filters), and so on.
The exception is when shooting in adverse environments with lenses that are only sealed when a filter is mounted, but that would still fall under the "specific need" case. Canon could, of course, have built-in a sealing glass, but using a removable filter is good because when it's not needed for weather sealing it can be taken off, allowing for potentially better image quality.
"I'm always curious what sort of trauma people believe their filters will save their lens from."
Must.... not... join ... in ... debate ...........
Oh hell, I just can't resist. 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". "cleaning" a lens does degrade its coatings by varying amounts depending on the frequency of the "cleaning" and the skill of the human doing the "cleaning". This degradation itself, at some point, will introduce flare into images.
I reckon personally that its better to clean a UV, and then replace it when the coatings start to degrade. The lens underneath is just shiny like new.
dortizphoto wrote:
...while at historic Fort Myers I took a few captures and quickly discovered how I missed my 24-70 f/2.8L lens. Even on my 1.3 crop. the 50 was long and I couldn't back-up far enough. ...if I can't take it with me on my shoots, then why have it aside from the lighter weight compared to my 24-70. ...do you guys feel I haven't given myself enough time to see if I really CAN really use it as opposed to using my 24-70 f/2.8L?
The smaller size and lighter weight are important to some, but not to me. The issue for me is if I would want or need the extra light-gathering capability.
All three of your example shots were at f/6.3, and so could have been done with your 24-70. So you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?" Are you always going to have enough light that f/2.8 or smaller will work? Is the DoF at f/2.8 or smaller always going to be shallow enough for your aesthetic? If the answer to either of these is no, then I think keeping the 50 as a second lens is a good idea. It's small enough that you can take it with you most of the time to have available if you need it.
Thanks Brian. Another reason I purchased it aside from the weight is 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.
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 used to be mostly true (there have always been some bad primes and some good zooms), but it's far less true now than it used to be. Most modern zoom lenses, and especially the premium-priced ones, are so good that if you were to take indentically composed and exposed shots with a prime and with a good zoom you would be hard-pressed to see any difference.
The key, of course, is "indentically composed and exposed shots." You can't get an f/1.4 shot with an f/2.8 zoom.
Brian, I picked up my 24-70 f/2.8L about a year ago. In your opinion, are these lenses generally good, or at least better than that 50 /f1.4 prime. You would think $370.00 vs. almost $1,400.00 would mean yes. Aside from it being a HEAVY brick, I havent had any issues with it whatsoever.
dortizphoto wrote:
Brian, I picked up my 24-70 f/2.8L about a year ago. In your opinion, are these lenses generally good, or at least better than that 50 /f1.4 prime. ...Aside from it being a HEAVY brick, I havent had any issues with it whatsoever.
It's generally considered to be a great lens within that range. I know many wedding photographers who use it as their main lens, and except for it not being stabilized (and in that focal-length range IS isn't absolutely needed) there's not much about it that most people would change.
In the reviews by Fred Miranda users, the 24-70 rates 9.3 out of 10 among 518 users, verus the 50/1.4's 8.9 among 366 respondants. I consider anything 8.0 and above to be a good sign, so both of these lenses rate very well, but the 24-70 rates just a bit better.
I should add that I have the 50/1.4, but I don't have the 24-70. I shoot cropped-sensor bodies, and I got the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (9.1 on the FM scale) instead. If I used a full-frame camera there would be no doubt that I'd have the 24-70 in my arsenal.
its the great FM "protective filter or no protective filter debate" once again!