Originally Posted by Rodger
Yes. I've seen a LTDG filter have an impact on a kit lens. If it can show up on a kit lens, you'd better believe it'll appear on a great lens.
Yes. I've seen a LTDG filter have an impact on a kit lens. If it can show up on a kit lens, you'd better believe it'll appear on a great lens.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Using that logic, the filter isn't necessary at all. The multiple coatings minimize internal reflection, which is an issue with digital cameras, as the sensor reflects some light out.
On a fine lens such as the one referenced, I'd limit my choices to two: either I put a darned good filter on the front (and for me, that's a B+W 010 UV MRC, no substitutions allowed) or I go filterless, period. Sometimes you have to save your money until you can buy the right thing, and that's life, and that's OK.
If you do decide to put a less-than-darned-good filter on the front of your lens, please promise that you won't post a single photo/thread regarding IQ of your lens. It's one thing to ask for advice (that's this thread), it's another to ask for help after you've gone against the advice given.
Back when I did live/theater sound&lights, I learned a hard lesson: except for speaker cabinets, everything I bought needed an additional 10-15% budget for a case. Once I accepted that reality, life became a lot smoother. It's the same here: budget an additional 10-25% for filters and cases (especially if you choose a lens that's a different filter size, as you'll be looking at polarizers and such).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Let me rephrase my post. The MRC is certainly a good idea if you can afford it. It's only about $25 more (for the 67mm filter) and certainly worth that. However, if there's a limit to how much you can spend, and $50 is too much, then there's no point in worrying about not having MRC. Just get the regular B&W filter that's cheaper, protect your lens, and go on with the rest of your life. I have both the MRC and non-MRC versions of the B&W UV Haze filters. To be honest, I can't tell a difference when it comes to my shooting style. I don't usually shoot into the sun (sometimes I do, though), so maybe it isn't as much of an issue for me.
I trust B&W filters. The only other brand filter I've purchased I returned in disgust because I couldn't take a sharp picture with it on the lens. I've never had a problem with B&W, so that's what I recommend--MRC or not.
I wasted money on a Canon UV Haze filter once - once - for my 50mm 1.4. It wasn't much money, I think it was ~$20. I shot a bunch of Hudson River / GWB images one night, and practically every one was full of halos and odd reflections. I took off the filter and shot the same stuff the following night - lo and behold, no halos, no weird reflections.
It's worth doing some research. The cheap ones (Tiffen, Hoya, Canon) are made of regular ol' glass, while the UVs from B&W and Heliopan are made from ground optical glass. Also, they have brass thread rings, not aluminum. The aluminum is less expensive, but it's much softer and will bind / become misshapen more easily than brass.
My advice is to buy one really good filter - spend the $100 - and use step rings for your other glass until you can afford more.
Whoever said "just figure the cost of a good filter into all your lens' purchases" had it right in my opinion. Except maybe for the nifty-fifty!
Congrats on the lens, Rodger!
In terms of filters, i say go for it. Just don't get a no-name $15 filter like I did the first time for my 50 1.8 II. It was off my lens in a week.
Have fun! [H]
Not to steal the topic:
Marc,
Hot swapping is switching lenses without powering down. The sensor remains charged and can attract dust/sand and whatnot to the innards if its on. Usually I don't worry about it and hot swap anyways, but I'm more careful at the beach. I hotswap cards all the time too.
I favor both for both of these reasons. I like the filter to protect against scratches caused by bumping, less than careful lens cap replacement, I can clean the filter vigorously without worrying about scratching it up with dust. Hoods are fantastic. I dropped my 30d and 180mm macro, when it fell of the tripod I had over my shoulder (i didn't set the safety pin, the the release lever caught my backpack). Thanks to the hood, the lens itself never hit the ground. The hood gotbeat up a bit, but flexed instead of broke. The 30D lost a few chunks out of the corners of the body, but it still seems to work (though there were some suspicious shutter activations a few days ago that might be damage I didn't notice.... oh well...
Still, hood is very good. But I still like having a protective filter.
It kinda makes me wonder, though. I hear of people dropping $200+ on some MRC filter, and in the same breath say "it's for protection." What? I understand if the lens is worth, say, $4000, but on a lens that's maybe only $1000, oftentimes a scratched front element isn't going to noticeably impair image quality, and even if it did, replacement isn't going to cost that much more than a few hundred anyway. Of course, that depends on the lens design--if the front element is fluorite, or low dispersion, or aspherical, then yeah put a filter in front. But I find it amusing that some people use a filter that's worth as much as half the cost of the lens, and then say how it's "protectingtheir investment." Oh don't get me wrong, I use filters for protection myself. I just think it's funny how the desire for "the absolute best quality" causes some people to arrive at rather strange conclusions about risk and value.
Lens hoods, though, are awesome.
I guess, like many things, it is either just a policy of habit, or a judgment call.
If the cost of the filter approaches or exceeds the cost of replacing the front element, then the only advantage left is that replacing a filter incurs less down time than replacing the front element. If the cost of the filter exceeds the cost of the lens, well, might as well carry an extra lens.
Most of my lenses cost more than $1,000, and my filters cost about $100, if I recall correctly. I don't like sending lenses into Canon if I can help it, and I don't like being paranoid about scratching the front element. I haven't seen a good filter cause problems that I know of (and I may just be ignorant, but even with filters on, many lenses with identical filters are significantly better than other lenses with the same filters).
So, for me, I feel better having a good filter on it.
If I get around to buying a 50mm f/1.8, well, yeah, no filter. Cheap thrills []
It would be really cool to see real world examples of no filter/good filter/almost as good filter/cheap filter. Show me that, and you might change my mind...
For most lenses, the cost of shipping and insurance into Canon probably compares to the cost for a filter. The inconvenience probably makes up the difference, and the cost to rent a temporary replacement (should you feel compelled or required) likely exceeds the filter cost (but still keeps things under the cost of a new lens).
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote