I just bought my new toy, a Canon 100-400 IS... I want to put a filter on it to protect it but also to enhance it's already incredible optics.
I have a UV filter on my 24-105 and have great results. I was woundering if I would get better results with a polarizing filter or if it was just not worth it.
Also I have use Hoya and B+W and haven't seen much difference. Is the B+W really worth the extra $$$ or do I need a computer analysis to tell me the difference?
Why do you think adding another piece of glass in front of the lens would enhance the optics? Actually, it goes the other way - any piece of glass you add degrades the overall performance. You also increase your chances for flare.
The reason to use a UV filter is to filter out some of the blue - like at high altitudes in the mountains. They are also used to protect the lens in environments where that is a problem - like blowing sand, snow. On some L lenses, adding a filter completes the weather sealing.
A polarizing filter acts as a neutral density filter and gets rid of glare. You only use them when you need them or you will be always decreasing the light into your camera by 1.5 stops or so.
You don't NEED a filter except in these conditions although some people like to have them on every lens.
UV or Polarizing filter as a choice is sort of like asking for apples or bulldozers. They are for very different things.
How fast is your computer? I have an assortment of filters from Hoya, B&W, Tiffen, and a few others. So far I have not been able to tell a difference between them by looking at pictures. I can see a difference in the printing on the sides, though. Plus, I CAN see the difference a polarizer makes.
Polarizers serve a very useful purpose. Never go outdoors without one. However, a polarizer is not used at all times as it simply takes away too much light.
I'm not rich, and use a UV or skylight filter on all lenses. It's easier to clean than a front element, and it offers protection against flying sand, dust and shot glasses. Einstein once said nothing could travel faster than light. He obviously never saw a toddler with an ice cream cone.
I use to use a UV filter on all my lenses. Now, not nearly as worried about it. Hoods are more important for protection. I only use a UV when stuff is blowing in the air (water, sand, snow, ice etc...).
runamuck wrote:
Einstein once said nothing could travel faster than light. He obviously never saw a toddler with an ice cream cone.
Yep, one of those hazardous situations filters are meant for.
UV and CPL are two different types of filters for two different purposes. UV cuts the UV band (duh) and reduces blue in high altitude. Otherwise the effects are basically unnoticeable & is why it's typically used as a protective filter. Here is a good article on polarizers.
I've gotten to the point that I sometimes use a UV for protection (toddlers, animals, salt spray, etc) and sometimes not. CPL is used when it's effects are needed.
Use a "hoodie" and practice safe shooting. It's a slow lens to begin with and I'd hardly
call adding a UV an enhancement. A cir pol for certain situations, but get a good
multicoated one. As previously mentioned you'll lose a stop or so, I wouldn't let it
live on it.
So much UV light is filtered by the elements that are already in the lens that it's really not necessary to use a UV filter even at high altitude.
A lot of haze on the horizon, particularly at high altitudes, comes from scatter of not UV but visible blue light. There are some fantastic examples given by Ansel Adams of filtering out visible blue light for black and white photography. The more restrictive the filtering, the sharper the image got. So yellow and orange filters make B&W images sharp, but deep red and infrared filters make them even sharper (assuming an IR-sensitive recording medium in the latter case).
Obviously these aren't acceptable for color photography, but the contribution of UV to this haze is quite minimal. Polarizers will also cut out much of the blue scatter at high altitudes, in fact to the degree that the dark sky at high altitude can look nearly black in mid-day with a polarizer.
As to protective UV filters, I lost a lot of photos to flare and softness before ditching my filters forever -- but I've never had anything more than a fingerprint on a lens, and those are easy to clean. I have three lenses from Zeiss, and four lenses from Schneider (even more expensive than my Zeiss lenses, and just as good), I would never consider putting a piece of Hoya in front of them.
Plus, I CAN see the difference a polarizer makes.
Yep, one of those hazardous situations filters are meant for.