04-28-2015 07:55 PM
So I picked up a 17-55mm 2.8 lens about a good month ago or so and I'm planning on picking up a filter for the lens. I had a polarizer filter for my 18-55 kit lens and I loved it, definitely allowed me to take really good photos of my car as well as other non car related photos. What would you guys recommend me getting? My friend told me that the UV filter is just to protect the lens. I never had one on my kit lens so I'm not too sure how the UV filter will impact my shots. I'm not sure what my budget is for the filters as the filter for my kit lens was only around $20-$30 but I know it'll definitely be more expensive for my 17-55mm lens. Thanks!
04-29-2015 08:11 AM
The 17-55 takes a very standard 77mm filter. So cheap filters are available, as well as very expensive ones. I'd get a good circular polarizer and forget the UV. I think a number of us in the forum consider the protective value of a UV filter to be exaggerated. You're betting on an event in which the filter takes the brunt of the damage and the lens is virtually unscathed, But that kind of event is rare, especially if you use your lens cap wisely (and if you don't dip your lens in sour cream, as I once did at an event I was covering). And any filter, no matter how good, can have a slight detrimental effect on IQ.
04-29-2015 10:40 AM - edited 04-29-2015 10:46 AM
Marumi 30$ or B+W more than 100$ http://kameratrollet.se/2013/05/18/dyrt-eller-billigt-polfilter/
B+W is more easy to clean. Else I never noticed any difference.
Canon sensors are really bad to absorb UV light, so you have no use of UV filter. The glas in the lenses also stops UV light.If you just want protection,you can use the filter, but I prefer the lens hod.
04-29-2015 11:27 AM
what about a polarizing filter? Same, B+W?
Yeah, I bought a couple of them for my lenses. They're very expensive but seem well made. I expect them to last longer than I will.
04-29-2015 01:59 PM
It's important to get filters with anti-reflective coatings. B+W brand probably has the reputation as the top manufacturer of filters (at least for round "thread on" filters -- because there are square slide-in filters as well.) Hoya Pro1 are also considered very good (but Hoya makes a broad range of filter lines and it's specifically the "Pro1" that you'd want if you get Hoya brand.
Here's an image to show you WHY you want a better filter:
On the left is an inexpensive Tiffen brand filter. On the right is the B+W brand filter with with their anti-reflective coatings (MRC = multi-resistant coatings because it's more than just anti-reflective, it also has coatings that resists dirt & smudges, etc.)
I placed these filters on a piece of black card stock for a reason... notice that if you look at the filter on the left, you can visibly see that there's is a reflective glare on the filter. You cant quite see the black cardboard as "black" cardboard through the filter because quite a bit of light is reflected away from the surface of the filter and it's operating as a weak "mirror" surface.
Meanwhile if you look at the filter on the right... it practically looks like I put the filter "ring" on the cardboard but with no glass in it (I promise there is actually a glass filter in that ring). That's because the anti-reflective coatings on this filter work so well that you almost don't notice the glass.
That "anti-reflective" property is important. It means that light entering your camera lens will actually completely pass through the filter (nearly all of it) and into your camera. The filter on the left will actually reject quite a bit of light (not good).
Further, filters have a nasty side-effect of creating reflections that the camera can see from the inside of the filter. The front of your lens (the curved glass) is also just slightly reflective. If you put a glass filter in front and it's somewhat reflective, then the reflection off your LENS will then bounce forward to the flat surface of the FILTER which will then bounce back into your LENS again... and you get a "ghost" image caused by the reflections. Use high quality filters and that "ghosting" problem is minimized (if not eliminated completely.)
Even very high quality filters can cause some ghosting -- given the right circumstances. As such, I prefer to not use filters on my lens unless they are performing a necessary function (I don't have one on the lens just to have one on the lens.) I own UV filters, but I hardly ever use them. Some Canon "L" series lenses will tell you that you should add a filter to the lens to "complete" the weather seal -- so if you're shooting in an area where you expect to catch some rain or perhaps a light spray.. a filter might not be a bad idea. But on a perfectly clear day, or indoor shooting, etc. there's very little reason to have the filter.
05-02-2015 02:19 PM
so the B+W is stil better than the Tiffen one then? And what size would I have to get, 72mm? I found a Tiffen one for $40 on amazon and I thought that is a really reasonable price.
05-02-2015 03:21 PM
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM requires 77mm diameter filters.
The B+W brand (with MRC coatings) is substantially better than the Tiffen. It's sort of tragic to buy a particularly nice lens, then put a cheap filter on it which reduces the quality of the optics.
I prefer not to use a filter (and when protection against something hitting the front element of the lens is a concern, I prefer to use a lens hood -- knowing that the hood will take the hit before the lens.) I will use a filter when necessary, but don't leave one on the lens for normal use.
A polarizer will help substantially with reflections (shooting through glass -- e.g. try looking a a car windshield both without, then with the polarizer (and rotate the polarizer as you look through the camera) and you'll QUICKLY realize how much of an effect the polarizer can have. It helps with all sorts of reflections -- particularly when the source of the light is orthagonal to the lens axis (not directly in front or behind you -- but reflecting from something off to the sides or from above, etc.)
While we don't normally think of green foliage as a reflective surface, it is -- especially waxy leaves that would usually give a shiny glare. The polarizer really helps reduce that and make foliage look more "green" (it's not really changing the color, it's just reducing reflections so you can see the true color.) It also eliminates microscopic reflections from particles in the sky and this makes the sky look more blue. Clouds look more white and punch against a more intense blue sky, etc.
Basically every photographer who shoots outdoors should probably own a polarizer.
If the polarizer is backwards it creates a purple/gold polarization effect (which looks wonky.)
05-03-2015 09:02 PM
is this the link to the b+w mrc coating one? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9778-REG/B_W_66044844.html
Appears to be.