Filters

[jann1033]

they don't work well. the really cheap ones are not good quality so basically you probably get the same effect by putting a nice thick pickle jar on the end of your lens and using that. cheaper too!.
i have a macro that has a 1:1 filter( lens is 1:2) and i hate using it. it makes the distance you are from the object critical, ie with mine you need to be exactly 12 inches away for it to focus( af or manual). so that means moving the tripod constantly, then moving the macro attachment i have on my tripod ,then finding out i am still 12.5 inches away and it won't focus. i don't know it the canon would have the same problem but i find it a real pain. by the time i get it set up perfectly, bee is long gone and flower has wilted and died my 3rd party macro was only about $100+ but no longer made ( build =very cheap ie like the canon 50mmf1.8,glass not so bad)

other inexpensive macro alternatives might be the kenko auto focus extension tubes that are ( i think ) still under $200 don't buy the non AF tubes unless you want to have to do all focusing, setting exposures etc yourself. you could add the step of using something like av, set the speed etc with the lens on af, remove the lens, set lens to manual, put on the non af tubes, replace manually set lens but imo the bug probably would have flown away by then. iirc they don't need a large aperture lens to work but you might need to add some light . since no glass is involved as long as the electronics work you should be in business. i have a non af set which i used once when i first got my dslr( few yrs ago) maybe i would have an easier time now but then i constantly blew out the highlights with them and haven't pulled them out since

or maybe you can also buy reversing rings but i don't know if they would work on your lenses or not.

or keep your eyes open for a used macro. now that canon had the new IS macro maybe you could find a used non is one even though it might take a while.

 

[kenny]

Looking to get some filters for Xmas. I am thinking I probably need a circular polarizer and a neutral density filter.

I was looking at the Hoya introductory kit that comes with the circular polarizer, UV and Warmer filters.

Do I really need the UV and Warmer? From what I read on these boards most of you are not too high on the UV and couldn't find much on the warmer.

What are your thoughts?

 

[gokenin]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

The link is to another forumn that has a lots of pictures from people using the Raynox adaptor for macro us the pictures I think are definately an alternative to buying a dedicated Macro lens

 

[JarrothsMom]

I would like to knoe too...and WHY the ones you choose!

 

[xipetotec]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

The link is to another forumn that has a lots of pictures from people using the Raynox adaptor for macro us the pictures I think are definately an alternative to buying a dedicated Macro lens

You mean the Raynox DCR-250 ?

 

[jann1033]

cp cause you can't really cheat with that one in photoshop and it helps in many instances: glare, makes prettier skies, lowers the light if you want to slow the shutter speed ie to blur water and don't have an nd handy or it's a really bright day and you need more than the nd you have handy and (g)nd, yes( (g)raduated doesn't have a hard line where it shifts gradually from light to dark. useful when you want to slow the shutter or it's a big contrast ie sunset verse foreground and background. the dark part darkens the lightest part so you don't end up with nothing but silhouettes ). warmer is what would make skin tones warmer which if you have even photoshop elements it has 2 warmer filters under the "filters". Uv opens a can of worms, personally i have a bunch i never ever ever use.
imo buy the filter for the biggest size lens you have in the best quality you can afford of the first two and then get step up rings for the smaller lenses. i have a cokin gnd which i really like...i can just hold it in front of any lens i have or use the handy dandy holder if i feel like it. they are a little less expensive than some others. they used to even offer a whole set of gnds for maybe under a hundred(?).

 

[Groucho]

Like Jann said... the warmer is a bit unnecessary for digital use and the UV is only worthwhile as protection but may negatively impact image quality. (I have to admit that I like buying used lenses with UVs in place, though; they often has perfect front glass! I do immediately remove the UV though.) A CP is very nice though, make sure you get a good one though. Hoya is very reputable (they own Pentax, how bad could they be? ) but I would probably still spring for one of the HMC ones.

As for the Cokin filters and/or step-up/down rings... my big concern is lens hoods. A correct-size filter will not affect the use of the "correct" lens hood for any given lens, unlike a Cokin or a step-down ring.

 

[My2Girls66]

A CP will get the most use other than UV ones for protection which I do use. I bought a .6 ND filter to do the silky waterfall thing and have only used it once. Works well, tho. I bought Tiffen's from Amazon. Good prices.

 

[spinetnglr]

A few years ago I bought a bag full of photo equipment (mostly for the Canon AE-1 film camera) at the auction where I work. I shot a few rolls of film thru it and then resold it. In the bottom of that bag though I found a few other goodies that I kept. One of the items was a set of 52 mm Vivatar +1 +2 +3 closeup filters. I did play around with them a bit and they are fun to use. I got some acceptable shots using them. As long as your expectations are not high they are a fun filter to use. Here is a shot I took using I think just the +1 on my D40 using the kit 18-55mm lens.

 

[edolyne]

I also concur that a CP is a great one to have at your disposal. As for UV, I place them on all of my lenses, yes it may degrade IQ a little bit but invest in good quality filters. In the past I purchased Tiffen & Hoya however I have since moved onto B+W and find the quality of their products to be excellent. The prices are more expensive than Tiffen but well worth the extra expense.

 

[jann1033]

Like Jann said... the warmer is a bit unnecessary for digital use and the UV is only worthwhile as protection but may negatively impact image quality. (I have to admit that I like buying used lenses with UVs in place, though; they often has perfect front glass! I do immediately remove the UV though.) A CP is very nice though, make sure you get a good one though. Hoya is very reputable (they own Pentax, how bad could they be? ) but I would probably still spring for one of the HMC ones.

As for the Cokin filters and/or step-up/down rings... my big concern is lens hoods. A correct-size filter will not affect the use of the "correct" lens hood for any given lens, unlike a Cokin or a step-down ring.

you can't use a hood with them although i've never had a problem with flare with them either, maybe due to the filter( ie maybe with another more clear filter it would be possible). they are easy to remove, screw off like a regular filter so i just take off the whole kit when i am not using a filter. i have the wide angle holder and it is heavier plastic than a hood so probably at least as much protection. however, the case the filter came in did not withstand impact with the hub's rear when he sat on it soon after i got the setup.....
i do like the fact that with cokin you can stack all kinds of filters, i think 3 or 4 which might be interesting to play with if i ever bought more filters.

 

[xipetotec]

A few years ago I bought a bag full of photo equipment (mostly for the Canon AE-1 film camera) at the auction where I work. I shot a few rolls of film thru it and then resold it. In the bottom of that bag though I found a few other goodies that I kept. One of the items was a set of 52 mm Vivatar +1 +2 +3 closeup filters. I did play around with them a bit and they are fun to use. I got some acceptable shots using them. As long as your expectations are not high they are a fun filter to use. Here is a shot I took using I think just the +1 on my D40 using the kit 18-55mm lens.

Wow great pic, thanks for posting.

Thanks to everyone for the advice.

 

[DisFam95]

A friend keeps gasping that I don;t have a filter on my 'expensive' lenses to protect them.

Do I really need them?

Thanks for any opinions/advice.

 

[VVFF]

A friend keeps gasping that I don;t have a filter on my 'expensive' lenses to protect them.

Do I really need them?

Thanks for any opinions/advice.

Entirely up to the photographer. They're ability to protect a lens and the effect they have on the ability of the camera to capture the tiniest detail has been debated forever.

Some people use them and some don't...best to just go with what you feel is best.

 

[ukcatfan]

I do not use them because I want the best results. I always use a hood though. IMO they are better at protecting the lens. While nobody is immune to accidents, but I tend to be a careful person with my camera. If you let it swing around and it often bumps into things, then you might want the filter.

 

[WillowBelle]

I always used one until I read another thread on these boards re: pros and cons. After reading through what everyone had to say, I took them all off. I have hoods also, so was basically double protecting them.

 

[ssanders79]

It is completely up to you. I have UV filters on a few of my lenses.

 

[Altair]

One place to use a UV filter for sure is in the thermal areas at Yellowstone. The sulpher laden steam can etch glass surfaces. Better a cheap filter than an expensive lens.
Otherwise it's up to you.

 

[My2Girls66]

If you are comfortable without them then you probably don't need them. I, personally, have always had them on and don't feel comfortable without them so I keep one on each lens. Even on my newer lenses that have hoods. I hike with my camera sometimes so it does take more abuse than most.

 

[Chikabowa]

I UV filter all my lenses (I also use hoods religiously). Mainly because I'm a klutz and I'm extremely hard on my equipment.

A smashed UV filter is much better than a smashed front element (this was off my 50mm f1.4 which I would rather not replace).