Sahid Limon
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Taking your top off... | |
John Patrick wrote:
Wow, insulting and bad advice, all in one post! Throw in a degrading comment and you\'ve hit the trifecta!
As someone who shoots in gyms with sodium-vapor spots all over, a hood reduces my chances of getting flare, so yes, I shoot my 70-200 with a hood indoors all the freaking time.
And a filter? Sorry, I\'m not putting a cheap piece of glass in front of my lens for protection. Not only does it increase the likelihood of glare, it decreases IQ, even the top, expensive brands. Plus, one hit on it and shattered filter, stuck threads, and a 99% chance of a heavily scratched front element. The front element is much tougher than any filter, and the hood a much better protector. The only time I use a non-effect filter (so not a circ-pol or ND) is in salt-spray or sand-spray conditions.
John
Hey, sorry you find the comment offensive John, but it\'s not aimed at you. You may shoot your 70-200 in an environment which may require a hood, however, many others (including myself) can shoot it indoors, without any flare issues without a hood. I have shot plenty of weddings in hotel ballrooms and reception halls, without a hood, and have almost never had any issue at all. The only time there have remotely been any form of issue, is when I would shoot a subject backlit via an off camera strobe. Hood or no hood, chances of flares for a shot like that are pretty significant. I never claimed that using a hood will degrade a lenses performance in anyway. If you\'re indoors and you use it, then use it. If you\'re outdoors in the sun, then you should be using it.
As for the filter/glare issue... I find this to be pretty nonsense as well. Notice that I said using a good filter, and not a \"cheap piece of glass\". You can get a B+W UV lens or a Kaesemann CP... high quality filters produced by Schnider in Germany, and it will seldom produce glares unless you happen to be placing the sun in the frame of the picture. Like I said, if you\'re outdoors and it\'s sunny, you should use a hood regardless of filter or not. If you\'re going to invest more than $1k for a good lens, then you might as well fork over $150-$200 for a \"good\" filter. I don\'t know how it really degrades IQ, as I\'ve personally have only seen improvements in my images with the filter. I\'m not just trying to defend this for the sake of argument... my 24-70 has been spared from an incidence, and I owe it to my UV filter. I don\'t know where you\'ve seen shattered filters leave thread on the front element, as my filter cracked into several pieces, but it remained intact much like a windshield. As for hood being better than filters... you\'re entitled to your opinion... but in my book, thin plastic is a bit weaker than heavy glass. Most of the standard and tele hoods are pretty large and deep, and will do a good job protecting the front element. However, the filters on some of the smaller lenses (fisheye, ultra wide angles, etc) are pretty small and thin, so the chance of your front element getting scratched or nicked can be significantly higher than a scratch getting all the way through a filter.
All in all, if you\'re using your 70-200 indoors with a hood, then more power to you. Whatever works for you to achieve good images, then you should continue to do so. You, along with some others will think filters will reduce IQ and cause terrible glare/flares, but I disagree and have tested it enough to come to my conclusion. I made the statement the way I did, simply because I\'ve personally seen people (mostly new photographers who recently got their first expensive lens), put a hood on, and brag about their lens, or blatantly show off... while it served no real purpose from protecting the lens or reducing glare. Matter of fact, just last week I witnessed such flaunting in a local park... and it was quite annoying. Still, I guess I could have stated my original opinion a little more politely.
|
