Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: filters  (Read 7405 times)
Elie7Elie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« on: June 04, 2006, 01:28:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello everyone,

I am looking to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm either the 4.0 or the 2.8, I have not decided yet and I am trying to find out what are the best filters for these lenses.  for the 2.8, Hoya has an introductory kit for $105.  However the polarizer filter made by Canon for that lens alone is like $125!  So I decided to come here and get some feedback on what are the best filters out there for these 2 lenses.
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2006, 02:41:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello everyone,

I am looking to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm either the 4.0 or the 2.8, I have not decided yet and I am trying to find out what are the best filters for these lenses.  for the 2.8, Hoya has an introductory kit for $105.  However the polarizer filter made by Canon for that lens alone is like $125!  So I decided to come here and get some feedback on what are the best filters out there for these 2 lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hoya is decent, considered a value. Canon is a rip-off. High-end brands include B+W, Helipan, and Singh-Ray. Expensive but quality.

Whatever you get, make sure you opt for the multicoated. Polarizers should be the circular type. If you have a very wide angle lenses you may need thin mount filters.

The only filters I own are polarizers.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Richard Dawson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2006, 05:45:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hoya is decent, considered a value. Canon is a rip-off. High-end brands include B+W, Helipan, and Singh-Ray. Expensive but quality.

Whatever you get, make sure you opt for the multicoated. Polarizers should be the circular type. If you have a very wide angle lenses you may need thin mount filters.

The only filters I own are polarizers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To add to what boku has said, you might want to consider keeping a UV filter to use for those situations where dust, sand, water spray, etc. might be a problem.  Most of us never use a filter unless we can state a reason for using it (to paraphrase John Shaw), always use a lens hood, and always cap the lens when not in use.  As a result, protective filters aren't often called for.

Another possibility is a neutral density filter, if you want longer exposures for water falls, and the like.
Logged
Elie7Elie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2006, 08:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To add to what boku has said, you might want to consider keeping a UV filter to use for those situations where dust, sand, water spray, etc. might be a problem.  Most of us never use a filter unless we can state a reason for using it (to paraphrase John Shaw), always use a lens hood, and always cap the lens when not in use.  As a result, protective filters aren't often called for.

Another possibility is a neutral density filter, if you want longer exposures for water falls, and the like.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67387\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, I always keep both a UV filter and the cap on all the time unless I am shotting.  However, is there really any difference between shooting with a UV filter and with no filter at all?

Boku,

I checked BH for prices on B&W and Heliopan filters.  Is it really worth spending the extra money and going with a B&W versus a Hoya?  How much difference am I gonna really get in image quality when these filters are used on the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8L or 4.0L?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8104



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2006, 08:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, I always keep both a UV filter and the cap on all the time unless I am shotting.  However, is there really any difference between shooting with a UV filter and with no filter at all?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There was a fairly extensive thread on this topic a while ago, perhaps last year. The concensus of the contributors that I respect the most seemed to be that putting any filter in front of L glass would give results comparable to those from a much cheaper lens. Since then I have stopped using my (expensive) UV filters, except when I am at high elevations where UV might be considerable. I always use a lens shade and a lens cap and keep my lenses clean (well, I do take the cap off when shooting.) My lenses have suffered no damage, and my photos sometimes seem to be a little sharper.

You can probably find that thread with a search for something like "UV filters".

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2006, 10:25:32 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are going to spend up to $1,700 for a lens, why nickel and dime the filter?

The only filters I use are the the B+W polarizer or a neutral density filter on occasion.
Logged

David White
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2006, 12:20:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I checked BH for prices on B&W and Heliopan filters.  Is it really worth spending the extra money and going with a B&W versus a Hoya?  How much difference am I gonna really get in image quality when these filters are used on the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8L or 4.0L?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know. Hoya, like I said, is decent. I only know that my B+W polarizers have been better than any other I've ever used.

L glass is very expensive. I don't quible between $75 and $125 to know I am getting the best out of the pile of dough already sunk into the lens.

If you go with the Canon L glass (the f/2.8 series), most of the main lenses use a common 77mm thread. We're only talking about 1 filter to cover a wide zoom, normal zoom, and tele zoom. It's not as big a deal to get the expensive brand filter.

Whatever you do, don't buy junk: Tiffen, Store Brands, Canon.
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
eatstickyrice
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2006, 04:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I spoke with a Tiffen rep at Photokina a while back. He (biased of-course) said that Hoya makes their filters by mixing the chemicals and glass togther, and then slices them. Tiffen on the other hand does some sort of individual coating on each. The difference being that it could happen where Hoya doesn't get their glass and chemicals mixed up well enough, resulting in some filters that are like they are supposed to be, some that are lighter and some darker. Tiffen, on the other hand, is theoretically supposed to be able to make each filter exactly the same with their individual filter process. What he said seemed to make sense, even though he did work for the Tiffen company. The best filters out there are probably the Singh Ray ones. I use Tiffen and have been pleased with the results. Anyone know anything about Tiffen that should concern folks?

Rick
Logged

Dennis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2006, 06:04:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I spoke with a Tiffen rep at Photokina a while back. He (biased of-course) said that Hoya makes their filters by mixing the chemicals and glass togther, and then slices them. Tiffen on the other hand does some sort of individual coating on each. The difference being that it could happen where Hoya doesn't get their glass and chemicals mixed up well enough, resulting in some filters that are like they are supposed to be, some that are lighter and some darker. Tiffen, on the other hand, is theoretically supposed to be able to make each filter exactly the same with their individual filter process.
That's marketing rubbish, IMHO. What else would a Tiffen rep say about Tiffen filters? Hoya is one of if not the biggest producer of optical glass worldwide. Does Tiffen produce its own glass? I would guess, that they use Hoya glass. There are not too many sources for optical glasses.
Logged

Best Regards

Dennis.
Elie7Elie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2006, 04:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you are going to spend up to $1,700 for a lens, why nickel and dime the filter?

The only filters I use are the the B+W polarizer or a neutral density filter on occasion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, no need to nickle and dime a filter when I am spending so much on the lens.

Ok, so I will definetly not go with Tiffen, Canon, or even Hoya.

So I have decided to take Boku's advice, but how do I decied between B + W, Heliopan, and Singh-Ray?  I looked up prices and here's what I found:

Singh-Ray LB Warming Polarizer $210 (does not indicate if it is circular or not)
B + W Circular Polarizer Glass Filter Slim $110
B + W Kaesemann Circular Polzrizer Glass Filter Slim $175 (what is Kaesemann?)
Heliopan Circular Polarizer Glass Filter slim $126
Heliopan Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Glass Filter $273
Heliopan SH-PMC Circular Polarizer Glass Filter $178 (what is SH-PMC?)

I will use the Canon 70-200mm lens mainly to shoot Landscape and aviation (airplane taking off/landing etc.) so Circular Polarizer is defeintely a must for me as it intensifies the clouds and the sky.  But how do I determine which of the filters above is going to be the best for me?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2006, 04:41:59 PM by Elie7Elie » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2006, 04:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe the Kaesemann is a sealed filter.  Nice.

I've had water spots (from a remarkably polluted waterfall) eat through the coatings on a Hoya SMC filter.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2006, 07:59:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Singh-Ray LB Warming Polarizer $210 (does not indicate if it is circular or not)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe the SR is a circular polarizer.  I have one and it has the virtue of greater light transmission compared to a regular polo filter (by about 2/3rd stop over the non-LB model).

This makes it easier to compose and focus (brighter viewfinder), and also allows faster shutter speeds at typical ISOs.  The warming effect is subtle but helps warm up "blue" shadows.

The standard (not thin) version works on lenses as wide as about a 21-24mm focal length (on FF sensor or 35mm film).  But I'd limit to 24mm to stay on the safe side.  Works very nicely with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

Highly recommended (but in a backorder situation right now).

Paul
« Last Edit: June 06, 2006, 08:12:22 PM by PaulS » Logged

Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2006, 08:22:05 PM »
ReplyReply

(what is Kaesemann?)


The process used for the manufacture of Kaesemann polarisers was first introduced by Erwin Kaesemann in 1955,
since then it has been continually improved.
Compared with conventional polarisers Kaesemann film polarisers are distinguished by their consistant neutrality of
colour and excellent polarisation properties. They can be produced in practically any size required while retaining a
high degree of mechanical strength.

From  http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/filt...n_katalog_e.pdf

Also at  http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/bw.htm#qu5 -

6. What is a Kaesemann polarizer?

Kasemann was an independent company that manufactured some of the highest quality polarizer material in the world. B+W Filter/Schneider purchased the company in the mid 1980's.

The quality of the material is uniform and neutral in color. In addition, the polarizer is edge-sealed and guaranteed against separation. Moisture from humidity will destroy the polarizer material and edge sealing protects the material. Kasemann Polarizers are available in Linear and Circular.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2006, 08:59:33 PM by Beachconnection » Logged

Jack Varney
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 502



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2006, 11:14:55 PM »
ReplyReply

The thin mount Hoyas in my experience come loose real quick.
No way are they as tough as the thicker ones....

It makes them a big hard to recommend...
« Last Edit: June 06, 2006, 11:15:59 PM by David Anderson » Logged

bmiller
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2006, 08:07:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Check out this website for filters.I've bought from them before,and just ordered filters for my nikon 18-200mm lens.
http://shop.vendio.com/hkd/category/1/
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2006, 03:40:17 AM »
ReplyReply

The only filter I use is a B+W MRC CPL. Excellent in every respect.
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Bill Robinson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2006, 09:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I too am looking for a good quality polarizer.
Do any of the slim polarizers have a back and front thread ?

cheers
Bill
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6885


« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2006, 04:55:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I too am looking for a good quality polarizer.
Do any of the slim polarizers have a back and front thread ?

cheers
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Usually slim filters don't have front threads so attaching a standard lens cap is out of question (if this is the reason of your question). You can find push-on lens caps from B&W and others but I have no experience with these.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2006, 04:59:29 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2006, 09:56:15 AM »
ReplyReply

All the slim filters I've seen have been too slim to have front threads.  They usually come with their own push-on lens cap, though.

Lisa
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad