Equipment Recommendations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Franklin, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which
    almost certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple
    of questions regarding camera equipment.

    For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.

    Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?

    I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it
    in my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk. Which camera
    case would satisfy both of these requirements?

    Thanks for your help.

    Mike
    Mike Franklin, Feb 4, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Franklin

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800, Mike Franklin wrote:

    > I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which almost
    > certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple of
    > questions regarding camera equipment.
    >
    > For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i with
    > an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    >
    > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    >
    > I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    > camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it in
    > my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk. Which camera case
    > would satisfy both of these requirements?
    >
    > Thanks for your help.
    >
    > Mike


    FWIW - I'd check out some of the more unlikely places for a case. I got
    mine from Fred Meyer a couple of years ago. It is a three way - I can put
    it on a strap, use in a fanny pack configuration or simply carry with the
    handle - works quite nicely for hiking, biking, etc.
    ray, Feb 4, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Franklin

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <>
    wrote:
    : I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which
    : almost certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple
    : of questions regarding camera equipment.
    :
    : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.

    An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)

    : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?

    None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    lens, and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.

    Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with a
    cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    away from the kit lens.

    : I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    : camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it
    : in my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk. Which camera
    : case would satisfy both of these requirements?

    You want one that has both a shoulder strap and belt loops. The Lowepro Rezo
    series fits that requirement, but there are many others. Look at various
    cases, and pick one you like.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2011
    #3
  4. On Feb 3, 6:43 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <>
    > :
    > : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    >
    > An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)


    Actually, I meant an 18-135 mm lens.

    > : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    >
    > None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    > lens,


    Right, that was the primary reason I wanted one.

    >and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.


    I don't understand this. A good UV filter costs several hundred
    dollars? Or maybe the kit lens isn't what I think it is?

    > Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with a
    > cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    > photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    > away from the kit lens.


    Hmm... maybe your advice would be different if I hadn't made a typo
    when I specified my lens.

    > : I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    > : camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it
    > : in my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk.  Which camera
    > : case would satisfy both of these requirements?
    >
    > You want one that has both a shoulder strap and belt loops. The Lowepro Rezo
    > series fits that requirement, but there are many others. Look at various
    > cases, and pick one you like.
    >


    Thanks
    Mike Franklin, Feb 4, 2011
    #4
  5. On Feb 3, 6:39 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-02-03 17:35:23 -0800, Mike Franklin <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which
    > > almost certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple
    > > of questions regarding camera equipment.

    >
    > > For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > > with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.

    >
    > > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?

    >
    > > I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    > > camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it
    > > in my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk.  Which camera
    > > case would satisfy both of these requirements?

    >
    > > Thanks for your help.

    >
    > > Mike

    >
    > If you are going to get a UV filter look for one from one of the more
    > reputable manufacturers. You are not going to need anything
    > exorbitantly priced. Check Hoya, B&W, Heliopan, Tiffen, see what your
    > local camera shop might suggest. There is no need to make the selection
    > of a UV filter too complicated, but multiple coatings will help.
    >
    > When you say hiking trips, I am making the assumption you will already
    > have a backpack for that purpose. So for those hikes where you will
    > have a non-photo-equipment backpack I would suggest a belt system of
    > some sort so you can utilize your back pack and have your DSLR handy.
    > There are systems from reputable manufactures which will meet your
    > needs and will allow you to add to the belt.
    > Check these:
    > <http://products.lowepro.com/catalog/Beltpacks,7.htm>
    > <http://www.thinktankphoto.com/>
    >
    > If you are just looking for a bag for those walks when you are not in
    > need of a "hiking backpack" consider one of the sling bags. They are
    > comfortable, hold extra goodies and make camera access easy.
    > <http://www.lowepro.com/slingshot> (they have others, this is just to
    > give you an idea.)
    >
    > BTW; once you get into bags, you will have a collection.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Thanks for the links! Very helpful.

    Mike
    Mike Franklin, Feb 4, 2011
    #5
  6. On Feb 3, 5:57 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800, Mike Franklin wrote:
    > > I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which almost
    > > certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple of
    > > questions regarding camera equipment.

    >
    > > For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i with
    > > an EFS 18-35 mm lens.

    >
    > > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?

    >
    > > I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    > > camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it in
    > > my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk.  Which camera case
    > > would satisfy both of these requirements?

    >
    > > Thanks for your help.

    >
    > > Mike

    >
    > FWIW - I'd check out some of the more unlikely places for a case. I got
    > mine from Fred Meyer a couple of years ago. It is a three way - I can put
    > it on a strap, use in a fanny pack configuration or simply carry with the
    > handle - works quite nicely for hiking, biking, etc.


    I'll check it out. Thanks.

    Mike
    Mike Franklin, Feb 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Mike Franklin

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:20:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin
    <> wrote:

    >On Feb 3, 6:43 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <>
    >> :
    >> : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    >> : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    >>
    >> An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)

    >
    >Actually, I meant an 18-135 mm lens.
    >
    >> : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    >>
    >> None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    >> lens,

    >
    >Right, that was the primary reason I wanted one.
    >
    >>and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.

    >
    >I don't understand this. A good UV filter costs several hundred
    >dollars? Or maybe the kit lens isn't what I think it is?
    >
    >> Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with a
    >> cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    >> photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    >> away from the kit lens.

    >
    >Hmm... maybe your advice would be different if I hadn't made a typo
    >when I specified my lens.
    >


    You have to consider what the filter is supposed to do. The "UV" is
    probably misleading you. Most new cameras do not need a UV filter
    because they have an infared blocking filter built in.

    So, what we normally use a UV filter for is to protect the lens from
    damage...banging it against something, sand or grit in the air, or our
    own efforts in cleaning the lens. A lens hood (I prefer the soft
    rubber expanding type) is usually sufficient to protect the lens from
    banging about. A lens cap protects the lens when you are carrying,
    but not using, the camera.

    If you are going to do beach or desert photography, then a filter
    might be added temporarily for that shoot. Any decent inexpensive
    filter will suffice because it's there for protection and not
    filtering.

    There's a great deal of snobbery about kit lenses. If it comes as
    part of the package when you buy a camera, then there are people who
    look down their nose at the lens. That's not always deserved. It
    depends on what your photographic skills and aspirations are. A kit
    lens is usually more than sufficient for even an advanced hobby
    photographer.

    Your 18-135 lens is replaceable for $400 to $450 ...less used on eBay.
    It doesn't make sense to spend "several hundred dollars" to protect
    this lens when the only protection you gain is reducing lens face
    scratching. It does not protect you from drops or bangs that damage
    the lens body, and that's where most cameras are damaged. A lens
    hood, keeping the cap on when not in use, and knowing how to clean a
    lens will give you more protection.

    As to camera bags, they are like ladies dresses: they have to be
    tried on to know if they are right. You have to go to the stores with
    the most selection and see how your camera and your accessories fit in
    the bag and if it's comfortable on you. Some people like
    shoulder-sling bags, and some like the backpack type bag.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 4, 2011
    #7
  8. Mike Franklin

    Alex Monro Guest

    Mike Franklin wrote:

    > I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which
    > almost certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple
    > of questions regarding camera equipment.
    >
    > For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    >
    > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    >

    Personally, unless I was shooting in extreme conditions (wind blown sand
    etc.) I wouldn't bother with a UV filter, for reasons as explained by Tony
    Cooper in his post.

    However, if you really want one, you might find the Lenstip.com detailed
    comparison test of UV filters helpful:

    http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
    Alex Monro, Feb 4, 2011
    #8
  9. Mike Franklin

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    tony cooper <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:20:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Feb 3, 6:43 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin
    > >> <>
    > >> :
    > >> : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > >> : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    > >>
    > >> An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)

    > >
    > >Actually, I meant an 18-135 mm lens.
    > >
    > >> : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    > >>
    > >> None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    > >> lens,

    > >
    > >Right, that was the primary reason I wanted one.
    > >
    > >>and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.

    > >
    > >I don't understand this. A good UV filter costs several hundred
    > >dollars? Or maybe the kit lens isn't what I think it is?
    > >
    > >> Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with
    > >> a
    > >> cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    > >> photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    > >> away from the kit lens.

    > >
    > >Hmm... maybe your advice would be different if I hadn't made a typo
    > >when I specified my lens.
    > >

    >
    > You have to consider what the filter is supposed to do. The "UV" is
    > probably misleading you. Most new cameras do not need a UV filter
    > because they have an infared blocking filter built in.
    >
    > So, what we normally use a UV filter for is to protect the lens from
    > damage...banging it against something, sand or grit in the air, or our
    > own efforts in cleaning the lens. A lens hood (I prefer the soft
    > rubber expanding type) is usually sufficient to protect the lens from
    > banging about. A lens cap protects the lens when you are carrying,
    > but not using, the camera.
    >
    > If you are going to do beach or desert photography, then a filter
    > might be added temporarily for that shoot. Any decent inexpensive
    > filter will suffice because it's there for protection and not
    > filtering.
    >
    > There's a great deal of snobbery about kit lenses. If it comes as
    > part of the package when you buy a camera, then there are people who
    > look down their nose at the lens. That's not always deserved. It
    > depends on what your photographic skills and aspirations are. A kit
    > lens is usually more than sufficient for even an advanced hobby
    > photographer.
    >
    > Your 18-135 lens is replaceable for $400 to $450 ...less used on eBay.
    > It doesn't make sense to spend "several hundred dollars" to protect
    > this lens when the only protection you gain is reducing lens face
    > scratching. It does not protect you from drops or bangs that damage
    > the lens body, and that's where most cameras are damaged. A lens
    > hood, keeping the cap on when not in use, and knowing how to clean a
    > lens will give you more protection.
    >
    > As to camera bags, they are like ladies dresses: they have to be
    > tried on to know if they are right. You have to go to the stores with
    > the most selection and see how your camera and your accessories fit in
    > the bag and if it's comfortable on you. Some people like
    > shoulder-sling bags, and some like the backpack type bag.


    Just a little more on filters.

    Your lens has 16 elements in 12 groups. "Groups" refers to lens elements
    which are cemented together. One of your lens's elements is made of
    ultra-low dispersion glass.

    Each of the 12 groups has two glass-to-air interfaces which alter the
    light path and slightly degrade the light reflecting from your subject.
    Lens manufacturers counter the light-loss and degradation through
    polishing and coating the element surfaces.

    If you put a cheap filter on the lens you are essentially putting a
    piece of uncoated window glass in front of all that polished and coated
    optical glass.

    Good filters like those made by B+W or Schneider start out with the same
    kind of optical glass as lenses use. They are sawn, polished, and
    multi-coated. The filter's two glass-air interfaces are perfectly
    parallel, and the glass is mounted in a strong brass ring (as opposed to
    aluminum or zinc for cheap filters) which keeps the glass parallel to
    the sensor plane.

    A cheap filter to protect the lens _can be_ worse than no filter at all.
    A well-made filter at least will reduce the amount of image degradation
    inherent in adding elements to any lens design.
    shiva das, Feb 4, 2011
    #9
  10. Mike Franklin

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Feb 4, 6:15 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:20:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Feb 3, 6:43 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <mkfrn...@gmail..com>
    > >> :
    > >> : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > >> : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.

    >
    > >> An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)

    >
    > >Actually, I meant an 18-135 mm lens.

    >
    > >> : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?

    >
    > >> None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    > >> lens,

    >
    > >Right, that was the primary reason I wanted one.


    That's the impression I had too :)
    in the days of film there were skylight filters 1A & 1B IIRC. to
    consider


    > >>and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.

    >
    > >I don't understand this.  A good UV filter costs several hundred
    > >dollars?  Or maybe the kit lens isn't what I think it is?

    >
    > >> Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with a
    > >> cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    > >> photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    > >> away from the kit lens.

    >
    > >Hmm...  maybe your advice would be different if I hadn't made a typo
    > >when I specified my lens.

    >
    > You have to consider what the filter is supposed to do.  The "UV" is
    > probably misleading you.



    That could be true, but a UV filter probably has less efect on colour
    balance
    than any other filter you'd normally buy.

    It is a pity that someone doesn't make a protection filter, i.e one
    purely
    for protection nothing else implied just a bit of good quality glass
    no filtering. (yes In know ND can do that but they have an effect)

    > Most new cameras do not need a UV filter
    > because they have an infared blocking filter built in.  


    I don't think there is any connection between a IR blocking filter and
    a UV one as they
    are at opposite ends of the 'light' spectrum.

    >
    > So, what we normally use a UV filter for is to protect the lens from
    > damage...banging it against something, sand or grit in the air, or our
    > own efforts in cleaning the lens.


    Beers too, maybe even rain if you take photos when it rains.

    There's something for a SI mandate Rain.


    > A lens hood (I prefer the soft
    > rubber expanding type) is usually sufficient to protect the lens from
    > banging about.  A lens cap protects the lens when you are carrying,
    > but not using, the camera.  
    >
    > If you are going to do beach or desert photography, then a filter
    > might be added temporarily for that shoot.  Any decent inexpensive
    > filter will suffice because it's there for protection and not
    > filtering.


    Yes I agree, but I'd add that perhaps keeping the filter on for most
    photographs
    and perhaps only taking it off for particular shots rather than only
    putting the filter on
    when you think there's a chance of damaging the lens.
    Which is sort of the reverse of what you're saying.


    > There's a great deal of snobbery about kit lenses.  If it comes as
    > part of the package when you buy a camera, then there are people who
    > look down their nose at the lens.  That's not always deserved.  It
    > depends on what your photographic skills and aspirations are.  A kit
    > lens is usually more than sufficient for even an advanced hobby
    > photographer.
    >
    > Your 18-135 lens is replaceable for $400 to $450 ...less used on eBay.
    > It doesn't make sense to spend "several hundred dollars" to protect
    > this lens when the only protection you gain is reducing lens face
    > scratching.


    But that's well worth protecting isn't it.

    > It does not protect you from drops or bangs that damage
    > the lens body, and that's where most cameras are damaged.  A lens
    > hood, keeping the cap on when not in use, and knowing how to clean a
    > lens will give you more protection.


    I think prevention is better than cure, I've had a pretty bad beer
    stain
    on my G10, I wish I'd had a filter on at the time.

    > As to camera bags, they are like ladies dresses:  they have to be
    > tried on to know if they are right.


    So when was teh last time you tried on a ladies dress and
    did you buy matching shoes and handbag like they do ;-)

    > You have to go to the stores with
    > the most selection and see how your camera and your accessories fit in
    > the bag and if it's comfortable on you.  Some people like
    > shoulder-sling bags, and some like the backpack type bag.  


    Depending on location sometimes it's better not to have a
    photographers bag
    as it's a green light to thieves, sometimes just a tatty old rucksack
    with padding might do the job.
    I feel the same way about laptop bags too, why advertise your kit to
    all .
    Whisky-dave, Feb 4, 2011
    #10
  11. Mike Franklin

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Mike Franklin <> wrote:

    > I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I (which
    > almost certainly equates to anyone reading this) could answer a couple
    > of questions regarding camera equipment.
    >
    > For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    > with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    >
    > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    >
    > I also plan on taking this camera on hiking trips, and would like a
    > camera case that allows easy access (I don't want to have to keep it
    > in my pack) but that doesn't bounce around as I walk. Which camera
    > case would satisfy both of these requirements?


    No UV filter necessary...just junk glass to mess up the image.

    And I don't think anybody makes never-ready cases any more.
    Mr. Strat, Feb 4, 2011
    #11
  12. Mike Franklin

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:48:42 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:

    >>
    >> You have to consider what the filter is supposed to do.  The "UV" is
    >> probably misleading you.

    >
    >
    >That could be true, but a UV filter probably has less efect on colour
    >balance
    >than any other filter you'd normally buy.
    >
    >It is a pity that someone doesn't make a protection filter, i.e one
    >purely
    >for protection nothing else implied just a bit of good quality glass
    >no filtering. (yes In know ND can do that but they have an effect)
    >
    >> Most new cameras do not need a UV filter
    >> because they have an infared blocking filter built in.  

    >
    >I don't think there is any connection between a IR blocking filter and
    >a UV one as they
    >are at opposite ends of the 'light' spectrum.
    >
    >>
    >> So, what we normally use a UV filter for is to protect the lens from
    >> damage...banging it against something, sand or grit in the air, or our
    >> own efforts in cleaning the lens.

    >
    >Beers too, maybe even rain if you take photos when it rains.


    I've never heard of rain water or beer damaging a lens *if* the lens
    is cleaned properly after being exposed to the element.

    >There's something for a SI mandate Rain.
    >
    >
    >> A lens hood (I prefer the soft
    >> rubber expanding type) is usually sufficient to protect the lens from
    >> banging about.  A lens cap protects the lens when you are carrying,
    >> but not using, the camera.  
    >>
    >> If you are going to do beach or desert photography, then a filter
    >> might be added temporarily for that shoot.  Any decent inexpensive
    >> filter will suffice because it's there for protection and not
    >> filtering.

    >
    >Yes I agree, but I'd add that perhaps keeping the filter on for most
    >photographs
    >and perhaps only taking it off for particular shots rather than only
    >putting the filter on
    >when you think there's a chance of damaging the lens.
    >Which is sort of the reverse of what you're saying.


    Filters are easily removable and replaceable. If the photographer is
    just walking around in sandy/windy conditions waiting to see something
    worthwhile to shoot, keeping the filter in place is no big deal. If
    that really great shot comes up, the filter can be removed and
    replaced later. The same can be said of the lens cap, but the filter
    allows the instant reaction shot.

    While the filter may degrade the shot, the effect is minimal for the
    most part. The advanced hobby photographer isn't producing shots that
    are so fantastic that the filter effect is noticeable. In this case,
    the poster asking the questions is probably far from advanced and will
    be taking snapshots.

    >> There's a great deal of snobbery about kit lenses.  If it comes as
    >> part of the package when you buy a camera, then there are people who
    >> look down their nose at the lens.  That's not always deserved.  It
    >> depends on what your photographic skills and aspirations are.  A kit
    >> lens is usually more than sufficient for even an advanced hobby
    >> photographer.
    >>
    >> Your 18-135 lens is replaceable for $400 to $450 ...less used on eBay.
    >> It doesn't make sense to spend "several hundred dollars" to protect
    >> this lens when the only protection you gain is reducing lens face
    >> scratching.

    >
    >But that's well worth protecting isn't it.


    Depends on your own cost vs value thinking. I wouldn't spend $200
    ("several" has to be two or more) to protect a $400 item when the
    potential damage is limited to preventable free steps. He'd get more
    bang for his protecting buck if he'd buy damage insurance for the
    entire camera. He's more likely to drop and damage the camera than he
    is to have sand damage on the lens.

    > > It does not protect you from drops or bangs that damage
    >> the lens body, and that's where most cameras are damaged.  A lens
    >> hood, keeping the cap on when not in use, and knowing how to clean a
    >> lens will give you more protection.

    >
    >I think prevention is better than cure, I've had a pretty bad beer
    >stain
    >on my G10, I wish I'd had a filter on at the time.
    >
    >> As to camera bags, they are like ladies dresses:  they have to be
    >> tried on to know if they are right.

    >
    >So when was teh last time you tried on a ladies dress and
    >did you buy matching shoes and handbag like they do ;-)


    My experience is limited to Husband/Advisor and finding out ways to
    say "That dress makes your butt look too big" couched in more tactful
    terms.

    >> You have to go to the stores with
    >> the most selection and see how your camera and your accessories fit in
    >> the bag and if it's comfortable on you.  Some people like
    >> shoulder-sling bags, and some like the backpack type bag.  

    >


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 4, 2011
    #12
  13. Mike Franklin

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-02-04 05:48:42 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > It is a pity that someone doesn't make a protection filter, i.e one
    > > purely
    > > for protection nothing else implied just a bit of good quality glass
    > > no filtering. (yes In know ND can do that but they have an effect)

    >
    > They do make quality clear glass filters;
    > <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=112&N=4277997902+4291315846>


    That's informative thanks,
    Now I wonder what lens the 125mm clear filter at just under $825
    fits :-<>

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/89382-REG/Canon_BGO5802000_125mm_Clear_Glass_Filter.html

    and of course why is that ~ $170 more expensive than the 127mm UV.

    must be economies of scale ;-)
    Whisky-dave, Feb 4, 2011
    #13
  14. Mike Franklin

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:20:25 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <>
    wrote:
    : On Feb 3, 6:43 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:35:23 -0800 (PST), Mike Franklin <>
    : > :
    : > : For Christmas, my wife bought me my first digital SLR, a Canon T2i
    : > : with an EFS 18-35 mm lens.
    : >
    : > An excellent choice. (But don't you mean an 18-50 mm lens?)
    :
    : Actually, I meant an 18-135 mm lens.
    :
    : > : Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?
    : >
    : > None. It's unnecessary. The only realistic justification is to protect the
    : > lens,
    :
    : Right, that was the primary reason I wanted one.
    :
    : >and the Canon kit lens doesn't cost much more than a good filter.
    :
    : I don't understand this. A good UV filter costs several hundred
    : dollars? Or maybe the kit lens isn't what I think it is?

    The original 18-50 mm Canon kit lens could be had, I believe, for less than
    $150. The newer IS version may be a bit more.

    I never heard of Canon offering an 18-35 kit lens, so I assumed you meant the
    18-50.

    : > Which is not to say that your wife shouldn't have bought you a camera with a
    : > cheap lens. The T2i is a fine camera, and if you really get into digital
    : > photography, you'll buy one or more good lenses and won't feel bad to walk
    : > away from the kit lens.
    :
    : Hmm... maybe your advice would be different if I hadn't made a typo
    : when I specified my lens.

    Possibly. But I don't use a UV filter for protection, even on my expensive
    lenses, unless I'm at the beach. And maybe not even then if it isn't windy.

    Most glass doesn't pass UV well. (That's why photochromic sunglasses work
    poorly inside automobiles.) Unless every element of a lens happens to be made
    of glass that doesn't filter UV, an add-on UV filter seems superfluous to me.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2011
    #14
  15. Mike Franklin

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:23:33 -0500, I <> wrote:
    : Most glass doesn't pass UV well. (That's why photochromic sunglasses work
    : poorly inside automobiles.) Unless every element of a lens happens to be made
    : of glass that doesn't filter UV, an add-on UV filter seems superfluous to me.

    There are, of course, times when you wouldn't want your lens to be blind to
    UV. An example is if you take a picture of a flower and plan to display it
    with the visible spectrum spread out to include UV, thereby showing the
    pattern, if not the true colors, of the flower as a bee or butterfly might see
    it.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2011
    #15
  16. Mike Franklin <> wrote:

    > Which UV filter do you recommend for this camera?


    None. If you need a protection filter (e.g. Canon protect filter)
    --- e.g. against mud, blown sand, salt water spray, ... say so.
    (And google for them.)

    I'd prefer a lens hood instead, which also protects against most
    normal condition problems and improves the image quality.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 12, 2011
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob La Londe

    Best Small Wireless Equipment

    Bob La Londe, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,426
    =?Utf-8?B?Q29uZnVzZWRpblRleGFz?=
    Aug 21, 2004
  2. Joel Dorfan

    Replacing UTP with wireless, what equipment?

    Joel Dorfan, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    528
    Joel Dorfan
    Oct 31, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?bWFyc2h1cg==?=

    Wireless help getting the right equipment

    =?Utf-8?B?bWFyc2h1cg==?=, Aug 9, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    429
    =?Utf-8?B?bWFyc2h1cg==?=
    Aug 9, 2005
  4. Bert van de Grift

    Recommendations for shops that sell Canon equipment in NYC

    Bert van de Grift, Apr 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    456
    Shawn Hearn
    Apr 10, 2005
  5. Replies:
    41
    Views:
    813
Loading...

Share This Page