Which filter is best to put on a 50mm 1.4??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Soren, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. Soren

    Soren Guest

    Hi,

    I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    contrast when using filters.

    Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?

    I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    for a good one?

    I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)

    Soren
     
    Soren, Apr 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Soren

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Soren wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.


    For protecting your lens, get yourself a lens hood and forget
    the filter. The 50mm f/1.4 takes the ES71II lens hood.

    I had expensive UV filters for all my lenses, but they're
    sitting in the drawer now. I use hoods all the time.
     
    Jim Townsend, Apr 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Soren

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 28, 10:32 am, Soren <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.
    >
    > Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    > since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?
    >
    > I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    > for a good one?
    >
    > I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)



    Yes.

    HTH.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 28, 2007
    #3
  4. Soren

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/28/07 10:32 AM, in article
    , "Soren"
    <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.
    >
    > Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    > since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?
    >
    > I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    > for a good one?
    >
    > I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)
    >
    > Soren
    >

    No filters except circular polarizer. All they do is put another set of
    surfaces between the sensor and the subject. UV doesn't affect digi like
    film. You want to protect the lens? Use a lens hood.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    George Kerby, Apr 28, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    says...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy.


    If it's just to protect the lens go for a UV.

    > Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.
    >


    Many will say yes.. Many won't see any difference.

    > Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    > since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?


    You are talking about a £200/$400 lens at UK prices.. Hoya Pro1 filters
    are available from Hong Kong for £17 / $34 including postage.. Or the
    HMC version from the UK for a little less..

    No point in going any cheaper than that..

    >
    > I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    > for a good one?
    >


    B+W MRC (Multicoated) or the Hoya equivalent would be a good starting
    point. Make sure it's a circular polarizer not a linear one... (Unless
    Canon have done something odd with the 400D.)

    > I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)
    >


    HTH.

    T.
    --
    Do Binary Tripods have 11 legs ?
     
    Tony Gartshore, Apr 28, 2007
    #5
  6. Soren

    John Smith Guest

    "Soren" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.
    >
    > Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    > since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?


    Use a filter, but don't go cheap on your filter...google for filter reviews
    and go with that.

    DP
     
    John Smith, Apr 28, 2007
    #6
  7. Soren

    Robin Guest

    Agreed Jim.


    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > For protecting your lens, get yourself a lens hood and forget
    > the filter. The 50mm f/1.4 takes the ES71II lens hood.
    >
    > I had expensive UV filters for all my lenses, but they're
    > sitting in the drawer now. I use hoods all the time.
    >
    >
     
    Robin, Apr 28, 2007
    #7
  8. Soren

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 28, 3:31 pm, "Robin" <> wrote:
    > Agreed Jim.
    >
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > For protecting your lens, get yourself a lens hood and forget
    > > the filter. The 50mm f/1.4 takes the ES71II lens hood.

    >
    > > I had expensive UV filters for all my lenses, but they're
    > > sitting in the drawer now. I use hoods all the time.


    I third the motion.

    Unless you are in some sort of extreme environment (or if for some
    reason you are just a complete spazz), a lens hood should be more than
    enough to keep your glass in good shape. KISS, is what I always say.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 28, 2007
    #8
  9. Soren wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    > lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    > filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    > contrast when using filters.
    >
    > Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    > since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?
    >
    > I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    > for a good one?
    >
    > I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)
    >
    > Soren


    I would suggest no filter unless you are going to be using it in a way
    that will expose it to a lot of abuse.

    You will likely gain more, protection and better results using a good
    lens hood.

    If you feel you really must have a "protective" filter I would suggest
    either a cheap UV filter or a top quality UV filter. Both will slightly
    degrade the image (unlike the lens hood that might improve it) and the cheap
    one will degrade it more. Chances are you will not be able to see the
    difference however as most people can't. You should note that most people
    here are not the typical person on the street and may be more sensitive to
    the slight changes.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Apr 28, 2007
    #9
  10. OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses from
    dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you "clean"
    your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and then gently
    dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?

    --
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    carrying a cross."
    Sinclair Lewis
     
    Ockham's Razor, Apr 29, 2007
    #10
  11. Soren

    John Smith Guest

    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:4633ce7c$0$9944$...
    > Soren wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    >> lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    >> filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    >> contrast when using filters.
    >>
    >> Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    >> since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?
    >>
    >> I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    >> for a good one?
    >>
    >> I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)
    >>
    >> Soren

    >
    > I would suggest no filter unless you are going to be using it in a way
    > that will expose it to a lot of abuse.
    >
    > You will likely gain more, protection and better results using a good
    > lens hood.
    >
    > If you feel you really must have a "protective" filter I would suggest
    > either a cheap UV filter or a top quality UV filter. Both will slightly
    > degrade the image (unlike the lens hood that might improve it) and the
    > cheap one will degrade it more. Chances are you will not be able to see
    > the difference however as most people can't. You should note that most
    > people here are not the typical person on the street and may be more
    > sensitive to the slight changes.



    Negative... Stay away from cheap. If you're going to do, get something
    decent and even the "sensitive" folks here won't be able tell the
    difference.

    DP
     
    John Smith, Apr 29, 2007
    #11
  12. "John Smith" <> writes:

    >Use a filter, but don't go cheap on your filter...google for filter reviews
    >and go with that.


    I'd suggest teaching yourself to recognize the difference between
    uncoated filters, single-layer antireflection coating, and multi-coated
    filters by the relative brightness of light reflected from its surfaces.
    An uncoated filter will have reflections the same brightness as ordinary
    window glass (including the glass display cases in the camera store,
    which can be a useful reference). The elements in any modern camera
    lens are multicoated. And a single-coated filter will be somewhere
    between these two extremes.

    A friend recently bought a Tiffen filter to protect his
    somewhat-expensive Sigma 30 mm lens. Tiffen is a well-known name and he
    says the filter was fairly expensive - but it is completely uncoated
    glass, and I'd regard it as a bargain basement filter not worth buying.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Apr 29, 2007
    #12
  13. Ockham's Razor wrote:

    > OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
    > from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
    > "clean" your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and
    > then gently dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?


    They're fools! I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any
    of my lenses. It's simply not worth chancing ruining an expensive lens,
    especially when there's not a person alive that can pick out the shots taken
    with a quality filter from the ones that are bareback in a double-blind
    test.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Apr 29, 2007
    #13
  14. "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:...
    > Ockham's Razor wrote:


    >> OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
    >> from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
    >> "clean" your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and
    >> then gently dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?


    > They're fools! I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any of my lenses. It's simply not worth chancing ruining
    > an expensive lens, especially when there's not a person alive that can pick out the shots taken with a quality filter from the
    > ones that are bareback in a double-blind test.
    >
    > Rita


    Agreed! And I'm an image-quality nut. You CANNOT tell the
    difference with/without a good quality single-coated ("multi"
    not necessary, and is just more of a pain to clean) filter except
    under some very rare conditions, possibly.... I use protection
    UV filters (I like inexpensive Hoya single-coated UV, though
    the UV aspect is worthless) on everything I have that they will
    fit (so not on my 8mm, 15mm, or 16mm fisheye...). Shades
    can help, though - and I use the largest and deepest ones that
    will fit each lens and not vignette (check both at widest and
    smallest apertures for illumination changes in the image corners).
    --
    David Ruether

    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Apr 29, 2007
    #14
  15. "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message news:f10s05$js$...
    > "John Smith" <> writes:


    >>Use a filter, but don't go cheap on your filter...google for filter reviews
    >>and go with that.


    > I'd suggest teaching yourself to recognize the difference between
    > uncoated filters, single-layer antireflection coating, and multi-coated
    > filters by the relative brightness of light reflected from its surfaces.
    > An uncoated filter will have reflections the same brightness as ordinary
    > window glass (including the glass display cases in the camera store,
    > which can be a useful reference). The elements in any modern camera
    > lens are multicoated. And a single-coated filter will be somewhere
    > between these two extremes.


    And a single-coated filter may be just fine for a front surface.
    The lens light transmission loss from adding even an uncoated
    filter is negligible - but reflections between flattish front elements
    and the filter can become more important under some conditions.

    > A friend recently bought a Tiffen filter to protect his
    > somewhat-expensive Sigma 30 mm lens. Tiffen is a well-known name and he
    > says the filter was fairly expensive - but it is completely uncoated
    > glass, and I'd regard it as a bargain basement filter not worth buying.
    >
    > Dave


    I agree. Tiffen filters are "bottom of the barrel" and I buy them
    only when I need a color not available anywhere else. But,
    beware of Tiffen "self-fogging" - they seem to develop a surface
    fog that diffuses the image badly after only about three months.
    They need constant cleaning.
    --
    David Ruether

    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether
     
    David Ruether, Apr 29, 2007
    #15
  16. Soren

    CoolPix Guest

    On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:05:52 -0400, "John Smith"
    <> wrote:
    it is a cheap investment of about 35 dollars to protect your lens,
    maybe others are using cheap cameras that say not to buy a uv filter
    to protect the lens. I would also buy the hood.
    >
    >"Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    >news:4633ce7c$0$9944$...
    >> Soren wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I just bought a canon 50 mm 1.4f for my 400D. I want to protect the
    >>> lens with a filter.. but I have no clue what filter to buy. Will a
    >>> filter give me poorer images? I've read something about loss in
    >>> contrast when using filters.
    >>>
    >>> Which filters do you use? should I get the most expensive one.. or
    >>> since it's a digital SLR, is it less important for image quality?
    >>>
    >>> I've also thought about buying a polarizing filter.. any suggestions
    >>> for a good one?
    >>>
    >>> I'd be happy to hear all suggestions! :)
    >>>
    >>> Soren

    >>
    >> I would suggest no filter unless you are going to be using it in a way
    >> that will expose it to a lot of abuse.
    >>
    >> You will likely gain more, protection and better results using a good
    >> lens hood.
    >>
    >> If you feel you really must have a "protective" filter I would suggest
    >> either a cheap UV filter or a top quality UV filter. Both will slightly
    >> degrade the image (unlike the lens hood that might improve it) and the
    >> cheap one will degrade it more. Chances are you will not be able to see
    >> the difference however as most people can't. You should note that most
    >> people here are not the typical person on the street and may be more
    >> sensitive to the slight changes.

    >
    >
    >Negative... Stay away from cheap. If you're going to do, get something
    >decent and even the "sensitive" folks here won't be able tell the
    >difference.
    >
    >DP
    >
     
    CoolPix, Apr 29, 2007
    #16
  17. Soren

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 29, 6:18 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > Ockham's Razor wrote:
    > > OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
    > > from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
    > > "clean" your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and
    > > then gently dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?

    >
    > They're fools! I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any
    > of my lenses.



    I guess you fall into the "comlpete spazz" category, then.
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 29, 2007
    #17
  18. Soren

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/29/07 9:40 AM, in article
    , "Nervous Nick"
    <> wrote:

    > On Apr 29, 6:18 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >> Ockham's Razor wrote:
    >>> OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
    >>> from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
    >>> "clean" your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and
    >>> then gently dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?

    >>
    >> They're fools! I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any
    >> of my lenses.

    >
    >
    > I guess you fall into the "comlpete spazz" category, then.
    >
    >

    Certainly.

    ;-)



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    George Kerby, Apr 29, 2007
    #18
  19. "David Ruether" <> writes:

    >And a single-coated filter may be just fine for a front surface.
    >The lens light transmission loss from adding even an uncoated
    >filter is negligible - but reflections between flattish front elements
    >and the filter can become more important under some conditions.


    Interestingly, I have a +10 diopter closeup lens that came from a
    photographic "garage sale". It's coated on one surface only - the rear
    one.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Apr 30, 2007
    #19
  20. Soren

    Guest

    On Apr 30, 12:40 am, Nervous Nick <> wrote:
    > On Apr 29, 6:18 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Ockham's Razor wrote:
    > > > OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
    > > > from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
    > > > "clean" your lenses? A filter can be held under running water and
    > > > then gently dried. Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?

    >
    > > They're fools! I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any
    > > of my lenses.

    >
    > I guess you fall into the "comlpete spazz" category, then.


    I shall refrain from the insults, but simply point out that surely it
    depends on your shooting conditions. The *only* time I will use a
    filter (other than when I want a polariser or ND, of course!) is when
    I am afraid for the safety or cleanliness of my lenses, eg shooting
    around seaspray/dust/rain.. For normal 'urban' (urbane?) use, no
    filter, just a hood.

    Yes, a good filter will be imperceptible in *most* conditions, but if
    you want the absolute best out of your glass, leave it off.
    Especially when shooting into the light, or at night (eg city
    lights).. even an expensive MC filter *will* add flare and/or nice
    little extra reflections.
     
    , Apr 30, 2007
    #20
    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. Jim Waggener

    Nikkor 50mm f1.8 ...absolutely the best buy for digital

    Jim Waggener, Feb 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    480
    Krystian Polak
    Feb 25, 2005
  2. The Grape Smasher Ltd.

    Filter Size: Pentax-M SMC 50mm f2 Lens - Asahi Optical Co.

    The Grape Smasher Ltd., Feb 24, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,666
    jeremy
    Feb 25, 2007
  3. Frank

    Canon 50mm 1.2L 'Protection' Filter?

    Frank, Jun 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,824
    Malcolm Smith
    Jul 1, 2007
  4. Bob Williams

    Re: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

    Bob Williams, Jan 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    David Ruether
    Jan 13, 2009
  5. M-M
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    31,436
Loading...

Share This Page