So decision is made; D300s with a 16-85VR, a Nikon 60MM macro and the Nikon 70-300 to start with. I want filters and would like to hear what you recommend; a good UV filter (Hoya?) and maybe a polarizing filter?
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283719207' post='2508']
So decision is made; D300s with a 16-85VR, a Nikon 60MM macro and the Nikon 70-300 to start with. I want filters and would like to hear what you recommend; a good UV filter (Hoya?) and maybe a polarizing filter?
[/quote]
With digital, there is no need to filter UV. It gets filtered already.
Some (like Wim) use UV filters to "protect" front elements, others (like me) do not believe in that, and rather avoid filters as they can introduce loss of contrast, veiling and ghost light images under circumstances.
I rather protect front elements with lens cap and with hood.
I would advice a B&W pol-filter for the 16-85mm at least.
I still would go for the Tamron 70-300 for sure, it just is the better lens (by some margin).
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283720356' post='2509']
With digital, there is no need to filter UV. It gets filtered already.
Some (like Wim) use UV filters to "protect" front elements, [/quote]
Yep. And enough reasons to continue doing so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />.
Quote:others (like me) do not believe in that, and rather avoid filters as they can introduce loss of contrast, veiling and ghost light images under circumstances.
The chance of those with good filters is absolutely minimal. I have only encountered this with single coated filters, but certainly not with B&W MRCs so far. And if need be, one can always remove the filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />.
Quote:I rather protect front elements with lens cap and with hood.
Of course, as additional protection <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. I use those too.
Quote:I would advice a B&W pol-filter for the 16-85mm at least.
Agreed, those are my preferred filters. Maybe the Hoya HD with hardened outer coating is a good option too, although that also may have a slight yellow tinge. I can't be sure, as I haven't handled one yet.
Quote:I still would go for the Tamron 70-300 for sure, it just is the better lens (by some margin).
That's certainly worth checking out, I agree.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283726412' post='2510']
Yep. And enough reasons to continue doing so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
The chance of those with good filters is absolutely minimal. I have only encountered this with single coated filters, but certainly not with B&W MRCs so far. And if need be, one can always remove the filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Of course, as additional protection <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. I use those too.
Agreed, those are my preferred filters. Maybe the Hoya HD with hardened outer coating is a good option too, although that also may have a slight yellow tinge. I can't be sure, as I haven't handled one yet.
That's certainly worth checking out, I agree.
Kind regards, Wim
Ok, thank you but you lost me again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> What is a B&W MRC or B&W pol filter and when would I use it for the 16-85? And what might I put on a Tamron or Nikon 70-300? Would you go for the 80-200 f2,8 instead of the 70-300?
[/quote]
Id definately protect my lenses with an UV filter. Even wehen you are very careful with your equipment, just by cleaning the front element you might scratch it or leave cleaning marks. Just get a good multicoated filter like B+W or hoya and you are set.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283726412' post='2510']
Yep. And enough reasons to continue doing so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
The chance of those with good filters is absolutely minimal. I have only encountered this with single coated filters, but certainly not with B&W MRCs so far. And if need be, one can always remove the filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Of course, as additional protection <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. I use those too.
Agreed, those are my preferred filters. Maybe the Hoya HD with hardened outer coating is a good option too, although that also may have a slight yellow tinge. I can't be sure, as I haven't handled one yet.
That's certainly worth checking out, I agree.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I don't know if you can see my last reply and questions; What is a B&W pol filter and what do you recommend for a tele. Also, I have not yet placed the order and would like your opinion on the 80-200 vs the 70-300. Apart from the weight disadvantage, it seems to me that a fast 80-200 is more useful than a 70-300 inasmuch as you loose the performance of the latter after 200 mm anyways.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283764883' post='2513']
Id definately protect my lenses with an UV filter. Even wehen you are very careful with your equipment, just by cleaning the front element you might scratch it or leave cleaning marks. Just get a good multicoated filter like B+W or hoya and you are set.
[/quote]
That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.
It is VERY hard to scratch a front element, to do so you need something that is harder. Not easy to find, most sand grains are not even as hard as the coated elements.
Basically you can NOT scratch a front element when you normally clean it (with microfiber lens cloth and a drop of lens cleaning fluid). And if you are leaving "cleaning marks"... then you are not cleaning it, obviously.
If you are paranoid about it, also get a soft lens cleaning brush, with or without blower, to get rid of dust and any other particles before cleaning.
If you actually leave cleaning marks on the front element... you leave cleaning marks on the filter!
Most arguments for "protective filters" are myths and bogus, born out some irrational fear and fueled by hearsay stories.
The easiest way to scratch a front element is this (most common in fact):
Put an thin sheet of optical glass in front of the front element (filter). Drop the lens or bump your camera bag against a rock or something else.
Find out that that THIN sheet of glass did not withstand the shock, and broke, leaving sharp shards of glass to scratch your front element.
If you are lucky, and the filter glass splinters did not scratch the front element, tell everyone on internet how your filter saves your lens (it didn't, your lens would have been fine without).
Fact: A lens cap protects the front elements against the bumps. It does not have a thin sheet of glass to break.
Fact: A hood protects the lens in a fall, as it will act as a shock absorber. It may crack, but will save the lens. It also acts as a buffer against bumping into things.
Fact: UV filters DO degrade IQ, sometimes ruining a photo. Even if you buy expensive multi coated ones.
My advice: Only put a filter on when there is something to filter, or when there is something to protect the lens against (and to which the filter can actually protect it). So, if you plan to shoot at a beach when it is stormy, or go shoot a motocross race, I can imagine a protective filter will give you peace of mind. Some lenses which are weather sealed want a filter to complete sealing, but no lenses you are considering are weather sealed. And you are probably not weather sealed yourself... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. Finger grease is not something to protect a lens from, as it is easier to clean a front element that to clean a filter (due to the shape).
I have never used protective filters (only used UV filters when they were needed with film), and I have never had a scratch on any filter element (front or back). And I am not particularly careful with my equipment, and I HAVE broken a lens hood with a fall of the lens. I currently have 5 Nikon, 3 Canon, 2 Sigma, 1 Tamron and 1 Tokina lenses without any scratch and with nicely cleaned elements without cleaning marks. And I have not thrown away money on filters with thin sheets of glass that can scratch lenses when they break.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283765370' post='2515']
I don't know if you can see my last reply and questions; What is a B&W pol filter and what do you recommend for a tele. Also, I have not yet placed the order and would like your opinion on the 80-200 vs the 70-300. Apart from the weight disadvantage, it seems to me that a fast 80-200 is more useful than a 70-300 inasmuch as you loose the performance of the latter after 200 mm anyways.
[/quote]
B&W is a good, respected brand.
The 80-200 is a good, heavy lens. With the Nikon 70-300 you do lose quality from 200-300mm, but with the Tamron 70-300mm you will not.
So if you worry about lesser performance at 300mm.... get the Tamron.
Another point: The 80-200's performance in the 200-300mm range sucks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
What you win with the 80-200 is f2.8. Nice for shooting fast sports in low light. What you lose is a silent lens motor (uses the in-body motor) and image stabilization.
I would hate getting a lens that weights 1.5 kilos without actually knowing why I am getting it, you will find yourself leaving it at home a lot due to the weight. That is why I chose a Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM myself. Half the weight to lug around!
To me it seems that some Nikon brand boys are "advising" you on some other forum? With a "just buy Nikon lenses" stance? Seeing your focus on the Nikon 70-300 and Nikon 60mm micro.
Whatever. I photograph on location and dont babysit my equipment. I am a photographer not a camera collector. Therefore I find it necessary to protect my lenss. No need to argue here.
UV filters have saved at least two of my lenses. IF you bump your front lens without filer your front element will most certainly get scratched. If you bump it with UV filter, there may be a slight chance that pieces of glass will scratch it, but to me that seems quite a remote chance and my expereince disproves your wild assumptions here.
Also why would one fidle around on and off screwing filters all the time, when UV filters dont degrade optical quality for all pricatical purposes?( maybe you can measure some degradation, but I certainly havent experienced anything in prcatice.)
BTW if you travel it is very easy for a little piece of sand to be stuck on your cleaning cloth, resulting in accidental scratches.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283766427' post='2517']
That is what Iove about internet, all these internet myths that keep on going around.
It is VERY hard to scratch a front element, to do so you need something that is harder. Not easy to find, most sand grains are not even as hard as the coated elements.
Basically you can NOT scratch a front element when you normally clean it (with microfiber lens cloth and a drop of lens cleaning fluid). And if you are leaving "cleaning marks"... then you are not cleaning it, obviously.
If you are paranoid about it, also get a soft lens cleaning brush, with or without blower, to get rid of dust and any other particles before cleaning.
If you actually leave cleaning marks on the front element... you leave cleaning marks on the filter!
Most arguments for "protective filters" are myths and bogus, born out some irrational fear and fueled by hearsay stories.
The easiest way to scratch a front element is this (most common in fact):
Put an thin sheet of optical glass in front of the front element (filter). Drop the lens or bump your camera bag against a rock or something else.
Find out that that THIN sheet of glass did not withstand the shock, and broke, leaving sharp shards of glass to scratch your front element.
If you are lucky, and the filter glass splinters did not scratch the front element, tell everyone on internet how your filter saves your lens (it didn't, your lens would have been fine without).
Fact: A lens cap protects the front elements against the bumps. It does not have a thin sheet of glass to break.
Fact: A hood protects the lens in a fall, as it will act as a shock absorber. It may crack, but will save the lens. It also acts as a buffer against bumping into things.
Fact: UV filters DO degrade IQ, sometimes ruining a photo. Even if you buy expensive multi coated ones.
My advice: Only put a filter on when there is something to filter, or when there is something to protect the lens against (and to which the filter can actually protect it). So, if you plan to shoot at a beach when it is stormy, or go shoot a motocross race, I can imagine a protective filter will give you peace of mind. Some lenses which are weather sealed want a filter to complete sealing, but no lenses you are considering are weather sealed. And you are probably not weather sealed yourself... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. Finger grease is not something to protect a lens from, as it is easier to clean a front element that to clean a filter (due to the shape).
I have never used protective filters (only used UV filters when they were needed with film), and I have never had a scratch on any filter element (front or back). And I am not particularly careful with my equipment, and I HAVE broken a lens hood with a fall of the lens. I currently have 5 Nikon, 3 Canon, 2 Sigma, 1 Tamron and 1 Tokina lenses without any scratch and with nicely cleaned elements without cleaning marks. And I have not thrown away money on filters with thin sheets of glass that can scratch lenses when they break.
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283766863' post='2518']
B&W is a good, respected brand.
The 80-200 is a good, heavy lens. With the Nikon 70-300 you do lose quality from 200-300mm, but with the Tamron 70-300mm you will not.
So if you worry about lesser performance at 300mm.... get the Tamron.
Another point: The 80-200's performance in the 200-300mm range sucks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
What you win with the 80-200 is f2.8. Nice for shooting fast sports in low light. What you lose is a silent lens motor (uses the in-body motor) and image stabilization.
I would hate getting a lens that weights 1.5 kilos without actually knowing why I am getting it, you will find yourself leaving it at home a lot due to the weight. That is why I chose a Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM myself. Half the weight to lug around!
To me it seems that some Nikon brand boys are "advising" you on some other forum? With a "just buy Nikon lenses" stance? Seeing your focus on the Nikon 70-300 and Nikon 60mm micro.
[/quote]
Thank you Brightcolours, as always your message is clear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I am actually going to buy the Tamron and then we shall see. Am actually not being adviced by any "Nikon boys", but of course there are different opinions on this Forum too. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I am thinking a 60mm macro, because it will act as a long prime as well. Have you got a better proposition than the Nikon one? Same thing with the 16-85, I think it is a well performing lense, but of course I could try the Sigma or Tamron 17-50. What do you think?
|
