Can I use them on my 24-70 2.8 L & 70-200mm 2.8 L? My local supplier doesn't have the regular ones. Are there any significant difference with regards to image quality? Please advice.
Printable View
Can I use them on my 24-70 2.8 L & 70-200mm 2.8 L? My local supplier doesn't have the regular ones. Are there any significant difference with regards to image quality? Please advice.
I can't comment on the quality differencebut I have a slim polarising filterfor my 17-40. It has no thread to attach astandard lens cap to it and the cap that came with the filter is prone to coming loose when removing the camera from a camera bag.
Of course you can use them. There's no difference in image quality - the glass is the same, it's the mount holding the glass that's different. The slim mount is usually for wide angle lenses (with the standard F-Pro mount you will likely get vignetting at wider than 28mm on a full frame body or wider than 17mm on a 1.6x crop body).
However, there is a big difference in convenience of use - the regular B+W SLIM mount filter doesn't have front threads, meaning your Canon lens cap won't work so you'll need to use the slip-on cap that comes with the slim filter - those are easy to knock off, and I really don't care for them. So, if this is for a CPL (which isn't left on the lens all the time), that's fine - I have a slimKäsemannCPL, it's great. But, if this is for UV/protection filters that are going to remain on the lens I'd stay away from the slim mount. (As a side note, for UV filters on wide angle lenses, I recommend the newer B+W XS-PRO mount - it's a slim filter, but with front threads - I use one on my EF-S 10-22mm).
I recently sold my Kaesemann CPL for a standard mount so I could have the convenience of stacking filters. Since I'm not a FF shooter, it wasn't important to me to have the slim mount. My widest lens is the 16-35L & to prevent vignetting, I zoom to 17mm which eliminates this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travischance
Just curious - what do you stack on top of the CPL? I have the slimKäsemannCPL (I initially ordered the regular F-Pro mountKäsemann, but exchanged it for the SLIM version) because I have UV filters on all my lenses, and if I'm in a hurry I can stack the slim CPL onto a UV filter and not vignette. Even so, when combining ND and CPL filters, I would always have the CPL on the outside of the stack (even if I had a version with front threads).
Is the slimmer XS-PRO required to avoid vignetting for the EF-S 10-22mm? I have read differing opinions on the topic. Most agree that a standard CPL will vignette, but the standard UV will not.
Per the B+W site, a standard CPL is 8mm thick, a slim CPL is 5mm thick. The F-Pro UV is 5 mm thick, and the XS-PRO UV filter is only 3.4 mm thick.
When I finally buy the 10-22, I'd like to know which filter to put with it. I was planning to move my Hoya HMC from my 70-200 2.8 IS to the new 10-22, and buying a B+W for the 70-200. Depending on the answers, I may have to change that. Back when I bought the filters, the XS-PRO was not available. I really like the idea of a slim filter with front threads!
I also have a B+W Kasseman slim CPL, which is fantastic optically. My complaint about it mimics many others: that the lack of front threads negates a standard lens cap, and the friction fit cap that is provided with the filter falls off constantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Kreitman
I don't know - I've never used anything but the XS-PRO on it. I also now have an XS-PRO UV on my EF-S 17-55mm - I know it's not needed due to vignetting by itself, but now I can stack the slim CPL if needed. Once I became aware of the XS-PRO mount (from a post on these forums [:)] ), which was after I had the F-Pro on the 17-55mm, I ordered an XS-PRO with my subsequent telephoto lens purchase and swapped the filters.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the differing opinions result from aperture - when a lens is used wide open, optical vignetting is more likely, and this makes mechanical vignetting more apparent. But, since the 10-22mm is often used for landscapes, stopped down as far as practical, mechanical vignetting is not much of a concern. For shooters using JPG or RAW with DPP, the application (or not) of peripheral illumination correction will also matter (as I recall, the EF-S 10-22mm was not in the 'stock' list of lens corrections on either the T1i or the 7D - I had to add it using EOS Utility).
I'll try to find some time to put an F-Pro MRC UV on my EF-S 10-22mm and test for vignetting, in the next day or two.
I did have a chance to find a HOYA PRO1 HD series UV filter. But would definitely purchase a B+W filter when its available....
Just minutes after my purchase, someone came in with a 1Ds Mark III with a 70-200mm 2.8 L IS mounted on it. What surprised me was the fact that there were 2 UV filters attached onto it! Yes, 2! (a B+W UV & a Sigma UV filter)!!
Are there any issues when using 2 filters (UV) on top of each? I know this one sounds stupid but I'm really sure on what I saw earlier. I didn't even have the guts to ask him WHY.[8-)] I do know that you can stack up UV,Grad ND/ND filter, CPL filter. The above sounds really ridiculous. Is there any explanation to this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhc_1
Besides mild insanity, the only reason I can think of would be to intentionally cause flare in a shot, as a 'desired' effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Same here.[:P]
Same here.[:P]Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I did have some time to test this today; I'll post the results in a fresh thread.
Hi, am a new member and have this question.
Do UV filters work on Digital SLR cameras ? Cause I saw the literature on the Canon UV filter saying that the UV protection does not work for Digital cameras?( rather makes no difference unless it is a camera with film. Is this true?
I have a EOS500D with 55-250 lens, for which I was looking toi use the UV filter as a basic protection cum UV filter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atulmehta1000
The CMOS/CCD sensors in digital cameras are essentially insensitive to UV wavelengths, so a UV filter is not needed to eliminate the 'outdoor haze' as was the case for film. Thus, the sole purpose of a UV filter on a dSLR lens is for protection of the lens. There are clear protection filters as well, but for various reasons they are more expensive (at least from some manufacturers). Optically there's no difference between clear and UV filters for a dSLR.
Whether or not to use a filter for protection is a hotly debated topic, and it comes down to personal choice (and sometimes lens choice, as well). Adding any additional optical element(such as a filter)to the systemcan affect the image quality. In the case of a UV/protection filter, you don't want it to affect the image quality at all. Low quality filters (the $5-20 ones from Tiffen, etc.) are likely to degrade image quality - those are generally uncoated or single-coated filters, meaning they'll cause reflections, etc. Note that the Canon UV filters also fall into that 'low quality' bucket (apparently, they're actually made by Tiffen, and they're the low end of Tiffen's line-up, which isn't great even at the high end). High quality, multi-coated filters (B+W MRC, the Hoya Super HMC line) will have almost no effect on IQ - but those are expensive filters.
Personally, I use B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses - the MRC coating makes them easier to clean than the front element (supposedly, the Hoyas are harder to clean), and for many weather-sealed L-series lenses, a filter is actually required to complete the weather-sealing. But they're not cheap, especially in the larger sizes required for the higher-end lenses. What I've spent on UV filters would pay for 70-200mm f/4L lens.
In your case, the EF-S 55-250mm lens uses a 58mm diameter filter - a good quality filter in that size is ~$40.
One other point to consider - in many cases a lens hood provides better protection than a filter, and also offers optical benefits by blocking stray light. I'd definitely recommend getting the ET-60 hood for yourEF-S 55-250mm lens, and if budget forces you to choose hood vs. UV filter, choose the hood.
Thanks a lot for the in depth reasoning for the filters. It sure was descriptive and detailed too.
Just one thing though... as in the case of our eyes (vision) , using colored sun glasses, changes the perspective of what we see and enhances our vision in terms of clarity.Likewise if the filter was lightly shaded ( not clear or UV), will this not enhance the clarity of the image in digital SLR's too?
Just applying the same logic. Or is it that the seemingly enhancement perceived by the eyes to the image coming through colored sun glasses , is actually perceived by the sensors in the eye as 'clarity in vision' and is not so in reality!!??
Likewise the sensors in a DSLR , should they not be affected/enhanced by the image as it filters through the 'filter' and hence must be ehnanced in clarity? If yes, then the IQ with the use of filter (lightly shaded, not UV) ought to give better results even with DSLR's.
It depends on the type of filter you're talking about, and what you mean by 'enhanced'. A colored filter (or sunglasses, for that matter) is going to add a color cast to the image, although you would not notice if you're using automatic white balance (which balances to a neutral gray and thus tends to remove/reduce the effect of a colored filter). Personally, I'm not a fan of 'rose-colored glasses' (or any other color, for that matter), and my sunglasses are neutral density - they reduce the amount of light evenly at all wavelengths, i.e. they are 'gray'.
I suspect you may be thinking of polarized sunglasses, vs. 'colored'. Polarization 'enhances' and 'adds clarity' because it removes out-of-plane reflections and thus increases contrast. A circular polarizing filter for your lens will have the same effect, and is a very useful filter (but not one to be left on all the time, as it results in a loss of 1.5-2 stop of light).
In a nutshell, when discussing filters for dSLR lenses, the only ones to consider are:
- UV/clear (for protection)
- Circular polarizing (to reduce reflections, useful for foliage, bluer skies, etc.)
- Neutral density (reduce the amount of light, useful for slow shutter speeds for waterfalls, etc., and for shooting outdoor portraits with wide apertures)
- Graduated neutral density (for unevenly lit landscape shots, where the sky is much brighter than the ground)
Those are really the only filters where the effect cannot be easily reproduced in post-processing (debatable for graduated ND filters - can be done in post, but it's a lot of work; HDR is another option in those situations).
Hope that helps...
--John
Thanks John for your indepth reply. It sure did help clarify many doubts I had regarding filters.
Atul