Dear Friends
I am using canon EOS 400d & 55-250mm f4-5.6 lens..
I want to know that for wildlife photography is it wright to use a UV filter with these lens..
Because I heard that UV filter drop the IQ of images..If it effect the image quality then it how much..And secondly dose if effect the focusing seed of camera plz help me I m in big confusion:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:):)
Dave,
A 55-250 consumer zoom is not a very sharp lens so if you buy a quality filter you should be fine. But large telephotos have trouble even with high quality filters. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ilter_quality/
Roger
With a perfectly clean filter there should be no problem, agree with Roger on that ! In practice its one more glass surface and would not recommend
When I was using Leica M cameras had a chance to shoot with a factory rep and when he saw my filter..... He said why use it that is why we make lens caps !
Watch for cheap filters. I've been told since I got my camera that you lenses should have a UV filter to protect the front element. That's all well and good.
First time I shot with my (admittedly cheap) kit lens, this was the result. If you look at the foreground between the 6th and 7th row from the left you'll see some green stuff. That's lens flare and it's caused by the UV filter.
Had the same problem on my 35 1.8 doing long exposures at night. At this point, I'll just be careful of my lenses and not put the UV filters on.
I used to use UV filters all the time. I always had the better ones like B+W etc. After reading Mr Clark's articles on them I only use them now when in harsh condition like salt air or sand etc. As Ben said they will cause flair at night so regardless of conditions if I am doing night photography I always remove them.
I always use a Lens Hood, they make very good protectors in most cases.
Bill
Last edited by William Malacarne; 06-16-2010 at 11:14 AM.
Never have used a UV filter for protection never saw a reason for it like the Lecia rep said thats why they make lens caps. Even if I wanted to my most used lens is my 500 f/4 and the most expensive lensI own only takes rear drop in filters.
Don Lacy
You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
http://www.witnessnature.net/
https://500px.com/lacy
I always used to use UV filters for 'protection'. I finally decided that putting a cheap piece of glass in front of a lens which was defined to be excellent optically didn't make a whole lot of sense. I stopped using them and think there has been an improvement in IQ (although I never spent the money on B+W filters). I do always, however, use a lens hood. In addition to the reduction in flare, it is somewhat protective if I accidentally bang my lens against something.
See what you started ? ;)Originally Posted by Pingal Chanda
You go to any internet photo forum and ask about the use of protection filter, you get tons of people coming out telling you not to. Some comes out in vengence. And I thought you knew that already :)
Drop in image quality, flare? Go take some pictures with the filter on and off the lens under different situations and look at the results yourself with your naked eyes, not a microscope or any other sophiscated equipment. Not that difficult to do in my opinion. It you see quality drop and you don't like it, then don't use it. Simple, isn't it? If you don't see it, then you should make your decision based on other factor, IMO.
Interestingly enough, I've seen arguments against the use of protection filter, but don't see have the same arguments applied against the use of Polarizer filters, ND filters, etc. After all, using those filters is still putting another piece of glass in front of the lens. The same argument against the use of the protection filter should apply then, should it not?
I'd say use it if it makes you feel better. It's your money, your lens, your photographs.
Besides, there is Photoshop :D
Hi Desmond Check out the price for replacing the front element of the 500 vs replacing the hood ... which is more expensive? .. might surprise you :)
Regarding the other lenses they are doing a specific job, the Polarizer cutting glare normally used around water and neutral density for cutting down light for slower shutter speeds.... makes up for any degradation and again those need to be cleaned !!! .. always found using filters to be a pain ... and had to use plenty with B&W film !!
.. yes there is Photoshop to the rescue !!!
I heard that for Canon lens you have to buy the hood separately, it doesn't come with the lens? Can't be true, can it?
If you use the filter, you remove the broken filter and you can still continue shooting :D
I also haven't used Polarizer for a long time. Take a look at the photo...who needs a Polarizer ? :D:D.. yes there is Photoshop to the rescue !!!
Thank you all your suggestation will help me alot
Desmond A while back Judy had her 600 lens hood batted around by some lion cubs .. when she got it back it was a bit beat up so it needed replacement. Called for a new one and I think the price was over $800 :eek: Replacing a front element is half as that !!!
Still I would feel uncomfortable using a 500 without a hood but see Artie doing so routinely ... keeps sun at his back so hood is not doing much and its bulky !!!
Desmond,
The problem with trying to subtract the first surface reflection is that the result has a poor signal-to-noise ratio. The reflection adds a lot of photons to the image and the noise is the square root of the number of photons. When you subtract the signal representing the reflection, you can subtract the noise.
The polarizer blocks the first surface reflected light and because that blocks the photons, the photon noise does not contribute to the image. The polarizer gives a cleaner image than the subtracting the signal.
Roger
I don't doubt that, Roger. The reason I haven't used a Polarizer for a long time is because of the type of photos I've been taking. For the attached photo, I was surprised by the result because I simply didn't know it could be done at all in post-processing :)
Thank you for the explanation, Roger !
$800 for a lens hood ?! That's obscene !
I've got a big coffee can and some duct tape if you need it... ;)
I had dropped my hood for the 500 and it bent and would not fit on the lens. Fortunately, Isaac at Southern Photo was able to repair it and saved me the $600+ for a new one.....amazing what those things cost.
... will be calling on the duct tape when I run into trouble Ben :)
I think the Nikon is much more expensive than the Canon, its two piece and different material !!!
I looked it up and it was only $550 at B&H, in stock...Nikon was 360 at Adorama, not in stock. But the Nikon lens is something around $2000 more than the Canon. Only problem is no one seems to have any Nikon 500 mm.:D
Bill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote