Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,445
Registered: ‎06-11-2013

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...to save up on some good filters as the lights and conditions ..."

 

A good post editor is a better way to go.  Filters are basically obsolete since great editors like Photoshop have improved so much.  Shoot Raw format and edit !


Filters that provide effects can often be reproduced in software to varying degreese of quality (although I've noticed that sometimes the software effects don't work as well as a physical filters.  

 

An example is 'star' filters that cause points of light to throw diffraction spikes so that each point of light turns into a 'star'... the software versions of these effects that I've seen aren't as good as using the real filter. 

 

Anyway... some filters don't apply 'effects'... they change your shooting circumstnaces and make shots possible that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

 

An example would be a circular polarizing filter.  These filters block light waves if the polarity of the wave doesn't match the polarity of the filter.  If you take a photo of something has a reflective nature to it (it doesn't have to be glass... it could be the waxy nature of plant leaves) you can tune the filter to see the true color of the object (such as the leaves) rather than the reflections.  You can't do this without the physical filter.

 

There are some mixed cases as well.  Lightroom will let you apply gradient effects to an image.  That's basically similar to using a gradient neutral density filter.  But the physical filter has the effect of extending the dynamic range of the camera in ways that the software process cannot.  

 

But to you point, there are also loads of 'filters' (effects) that CAN be done entirely in software and often with more control than you might have if you used a physical filter on the lens.  This means many filters are not necessary these days. 

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
VIP
Posts: 9,053
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape

"Filters that provide effects can often be reproduced in software to varying degreese of quality (although I've noticed that sometimes the software effects don't work as well as a physical filters."

 

It all depends on the skill and knowledeg of the person using Photoshop.

A lot less stuff for 2018 but still a lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 6,290
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape


@limvo05 wrote:

Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. I finally saved enough for the 70-200 IS MK1 only. MK2 was a bit out of reach right now. Will definitely look into getting the X1.4 extender some day but right now, trying to save up on some good filters as the lights and conditions in these National Parks can be tricky.

 

LV


The only filter that I would recommend buying would be a Clear protective filter.  Other filters, like CP, UV, and ND, should be used for the effects that they create.  They are no good for protective use.

 

If you did not get a hood with your lens, then you almost certainly might want to invest in a hood and a Clear protective filter.  I recommend the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano filter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 44
Registered: ‎01-27-2018

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape

someone recommended this B+W 77mm Digital MRC F-PRO UV-HAZE filter. Is this any good or should i get the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano as suggested? Thanks

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,291
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape


@limvo05 wrote:

someone recommended this B+W 77mm Digital MRC F-PRO UV-HAZE filter. Is this any good or should i get the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano as suggested? Thanks


Digital cameras don't need haze filters, so it doesn't make a particle of difference whether the filter you choose blocks UV or not. Either filter may degrade your image quality slightly by causing unwanted reflections, and neither will provide significant protection against catastrophic damage. Any accident severe enough to break the filter is likely to damage the lens as well.

 

If you do much outdoor photography, you'll probably be glad to have a circular polarizer. And there are times when a neutral density filter can be useful if you're willing to learn how to use it. Other than that, filters in the digital age are mostly a feelgood item. At best, they're a bit easier to clean than lenses are; at worst, they can cost you money that could have been better spent in other ways.

 

BTW, a "circular" polarizer isn't called that because its rim is a circle. The reference is to its usage of certain arcane optical principles to ensure that it doesn't interfere with the camera's autofocus system. I wouldn't even try to explain it, so Google the term if you're interested.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Honored Contributor
Posts: 6,290
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape


@limvo05 wrote:

someone recommended this B+W 77mm Digital MRC F-PRO UV-HAZE filter. Is this any good or should i get the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano as suggested? Thanks


Which one?  Why do you want a filter in the first place?  Filters, like UV filters, have specific uses.  If all you want is general protection, then go with a clear filter.  However, if you do not have a hood, then buy one of those first and foremost.

 

You do not need to worry about “reflections” with high quality clear filters.  They have coatings to prevent it, just like the dozen focusing elements inside of the lens body have anti-reflective coatings.  The focusing elements inside the lens body are more likely to cause reflections than a quality filter.  

 

Most digital cameras have a UV filter built into the image sensor assembly, so you do not really need a UV filter, anyway.  I switched from UV filters to clear on my EF-24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens, and suddenly my colors looked better.  I think they may have an adverse effect on automatic WB.

 

There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to lens filters.  There are the purists, who do not want any filters.  There are those at the opposite end of the spectrum who filter every shot they take.  I fall somewhere in the middle, probably leaning towards the “always have a filter” crowd, except I use clear filters to protect the front lens element, not for photographic effect.

 

Purists say a lens hood is sufficient protection for a lens against accidental bumps and bangs.  It can, except that type of protection diminishes as the focal length gets shorter, and the petals on the lens hood get shorter.  Again, buy a hood and use it, if you do not have one for your 70-200, not so much for protection, but to help the camera meter a scene better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
VIP
Posts: 9,053
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape

"Any accident severe enough to break the filter is likely to damage the lens as well."

 

Not in my personal experience, I remember four broken filters.  Two just broke the filter and two broke both the filter and front element.  Last one was my ef 85mm f1.2L.  The floor at  McDonald's got both the filter and the front element.  Before it was on my Siggy 120-300mm f2.8 where just the filter got broken but the element was saved.  The others the same one broke filter and one with both.

I can see a case if you have an inexpensive consumer lens the filter may not be cost justified.  However, on a high value lens the filter may never help you either but they neither hurt.  The ghosting and reflections are mostly hype. In general photography that is but if you are in a situation where you believe ghosting can be a problem, remove it.  If you don't know when that is, you need to study photography more.

 

I believe you should use hoods but not for protection.  I guess they offer some degree of bump protection but they do nothing more.

A lot less stuff for 2018 but still a lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement