Filter Brand-- Does it really matter?
Oct 31, 2011 07:15:47 #
I am looking at adding some filters to my collection for my new Canon 24-105 Macro L ...Curious if you think any brand is truly superior to others? One certainly would think so when you compare the prices of the 77mm Close Up filters I've been looking at and their amazing price differences.
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
Oct 31, 2011 13:14:00 #
My only thought on filters is don't buy a bargain brand as it may very well degrade your image. If you've got a Canon, the I'd say stay with Canon or a name brand filter maker like Tiffen.
Oct 31, 2011 13:17:22 #
Don't buy Tiffen = Junk. B+W filters are very good German made optics, you just can't beat em.
Nov 1, 2011 07:30:07 #
You have a highly engineered lens that may have costed hundreds. Why would you place a $20.00 piece of glass in front of it?
Nov 1, 2011 07:51:43 #
I agree about not placing junk in front of my lens. Just wondering which brands to chose & which to avoid.
Nov 1, 2011 08:20:02 #
I find it amusing that just 10 -15 years ago everybody bought the standard filters for their cameras.. the same ones they still sell now...and they were fine. Now because the filter companies have upped the price on them to $80 plus, everybody thinks they are better. We live in a world where everybody thinks that if it costs more it must be better. Im still using the filters (with the exception of my Polarizer and I did have to buy some new ones for my newer bigger lens size) I had on my D6006/film and now use them on my D5000/ digital. No problems even on big enlargements.. dont fall for the hype! Are they a better filter? Maybe as far as thickness, the new ones are much thinner. Maybe quality is compromised if your going to be doing huge enlargements? Is this to say that all the photos we were producing a while back were all blurry and garbage? If you are getting blurry pictures from an old filter I would bet it has more to do with tiny scratches from years of polishing than any other reason....just my 2 cents
Nov 1, 2011 08:29:10 #
As stated earlier, B+W is a good filter. Go to B&H on the web and you can get the reviews done by users. I think they speak for themselves.I just don't understand why we would worry about the quality of glass on a lens but not place the same concern on the glass we place in front of that lens. Some photographers won't even use a UV filter to protect the lens from dust and scratches because of the degradation of the photo.
jwegge11 wrote:
I agree about not placing junk in front of my lens. Just wondering which brands to chose & which to avoid.
Nov 1, 2011 08:38:11 #
Another concern you might be interested in. I was using the cheaper filters and on some photos I would get ghosting and flare. If I understand correctly this is caused by the light reflecting between the the lens and filter. Some of the $80.00 dollar lens mentioned above are multi coated to help with this pontential problem. Also some of these filters are super thin so you're not as likely to get vignetting when zoomed out. I learned this the hard way on a trip to Colorado.
Nov 1, 2011 09:01:35 #
One more thing to consider. If you have multiple lenses you would need to buy a filter with threads sized to match your largest lens. Then buy step down rings to fit the rest of your lenses. This would keep you from having to buy filters for all the lenses. Rings are a lot cheaper.
Nov 1, 2011 09:06:03 #
Nov 1, 2011 11:55:33 #
jwegge11 wrote:
I am looking at adding some filters to my collection for my new Canon 24-105 Macro L ...Curious if you think any brand is truly superior to others? One certainly would think so when you compare the prices of the 77mm Close Up filters I've been looking at and their amazing price differences.
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
I do not think that a macro lens of the caliber that you mention would be enhanced by the additional of another piece of glass between the sensor and the subject if the purpose was to magnify the image. If you need a filter to refine the lighting I would suggest that a polarizer would be the most beneficial. In my experience with purchasing polarizers the cheaper ones do not work.
Nov 1, 2011 12:14:46 #
silver
Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
jwegge11 wrote:
I am looking at adding some filters to my collection for my new Canon 24-105 Macro L ...Curious if you think any brand is truly superior to others? One certainly would think so when you compare the prices of the 77mm Close Up filters I've been looking at and their amazing price differences.
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
Any thoughts from you would be very much appreciated.
Jeff
First things first. This lens is not a macro lens, it just focuses a little closer then other lenses. . The advantage of a true macro lens is that the lens is optimally designed for macro work, not necessarily 1-1, and a true macro lens is a fixed focal length flat field lens. If I were you I would save my money buying expensive close up filters that are so so anyway and put the money into a true macro lens. The new version of the canon 100mm macro lens is a wonderful lens. Also just because a lens is a macro lens dosent mean that it cant be used for regular photography.
Nov 1, 2011 13:28:50 #
I would like to second the thoughts on B+W filters. For years I used Tiffen and Hoya because I thought they did a good job. But when you see and handle a B+W filter you can see the quality.
The only filters that I use on a regular basis are the circular polarizer and the neutral density filters. I do own a UV filter for my wide angle zoom but do not use it all the time.
There seems to be two schools of thought about the usefulness of a UV filter. Some say it helps protect the lens while others profess that a UV filter degrades the image too much.
My suggestion is to try one out and see for yourself. UV filters are generally inexpensive, even for a quality one.
The only filters that I use on a regular basis are the circular polarizer and the neutral density filters. I do own a UV filter for my wide angle zoom but do not use it all the time.
There seems to be two schools of thought about the usefulness of a UV filter. Some say it helps protect the lens while others profess that a UV filter degrades the image too much.
My suggestion is to try one out and see for yourself. UV filters are generally inexpensive, even for a quality one.
Nov 1, 2011 13:33:16 #
Nov 1, 2011 13:42:46 #
For the most part it only darkens the enviroment without changing colors. Thus the word "neutral". Kinda like putting sunglasses on.I use nd filters on a brighter day to shoot waterfalls. This allows me to slow my shutter speed down creating the moving affect of the water. Also, you could use a graduated nd filter to shoot a scene where the sky is bright and the foreground is not so bright. This would tone the sky down to where it and the forground are exposed equally. ND filters are measured in how many stops you can step down to depending on the density or shade of the filter.Just google this and you will find a wealth of info.
jwegge11 wrote:
What is the overall purpose of your neutral density filter?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.