i've got a uv on my 28-105 but nothing on my sigma 10-20. with the hood it seems fine, i'm not worried
Thanks for the info, but i'm with Cthippo on this one... having a protective filter over my lens just gives me piece of mind but it doesn't mean i'll have to keep it on when taking every picture. If the filter affects the shot in any adverse way I can always take it off. I know it's the store that sells them to make a profit, they'll ask the same question with every lens purchase 'we recommend a ... blah blah' etc I said i'll only buy one if it was competitive... I got £75 off my 10-22mm and £10 off the filter so i'm OK with that. The other store in my city (London Camera Exchange) wouldn't even get close to that. I'll follow yours and Hwulex's recommendation for a hood though.. another form of protection that also improves clarity is always a bonus.
Sorry, but that web site is full of innacuracies, especially #19. A decent filter is optically flat, and therefore inert. The only possible detriment it can be towards quality is the increased risk of flare. Both Hoya on the HMC pro range, and B+W use multi-coatings just as effective, or more effective than the lens manufacturers. I'm not saying that you have to have a filter on at all times, but this attitude of "real" photographers don't use them as "we" know they reduce image quality makes me want to scream. IMO, in any environment where there's a risk of any airborne particulates whatsoever, I'll use a filter. Anyone who doesn't, and risks a £700 lens because they think they're getting any sort of visible quality increase is probably the sort of "pro" who's more bothered about his equipment than his images.... probably takes lots of images of steam trains, or spice laden Indian market stalls.. or "landscapes". (yawn). Your lens costs a great deal.... if it's dusty, or windy outdoors.. use a filter. As other have said tho, if you want to reduce flare and increase contrast, AND decrease the risk of anything entering/hitting the lens, then a lens hood is probably the best investment you'll make. They do tend to have limited effectiveness when you get to very wide lenses however, and this is particularly true for wide zooms. The hood has to not vignette (crop into the field of view) the image at the wide end, yet still be effective at the long end: Technically not really possible. Hoods for wide zooms are not very effective tbh. Anyway... B+W or Hoya HMC pro for filters, and you'll be OK. If you're indoors, or somewhere where there's no dust or debris... then there's no need for a filter at all.
i agree. and that's what the site said - don't put filters in front of your expensive glass UNLESS YOU NEED TO! of course you'd be nuts not to use some kind of protection on a beach, or in a muddy place, etc. but since most people do most of their shooting out on the street, or indoors, there's really no point.
Shame that it's EF-S though I guess they want the xD owners to be buying the wider L glasses such as the 14mm L.
I'm guessing that if a professional (or indeed a pro-sumer) has the need for and means to purchase an xD series, then they've also probably got the means to afford a L-series lens as well as the need for the quality. I'm quite content with my purchase as I figure that if I really need the (few) features of a more expensive body it'll probably only be a 20D or 30D any way and they'll still be EF-S. I just hope I don't get a hankering for full frame any time soon..
nah, you won't. in fact i have a feeling canon might even stop making fullframe cams themselves. makes it easier to design lenses for em, and FF doesn't really provide huge advantages.
Or just the 16-35mm L. That's the exact same lens on an FF body as the 10-22mm is on a 1.6x, but a lot more expensive. For about the same cash as the 10-22mm and only 1mm difference at the wide end, the 17-40mm L on FF. The 14mm L just means the Pros can go even wider. Sick.
First few photos with the 10-22mm, pretty standard straight down the road shooting with it at the mo' as it's a different beast to standard lens. Love this lens! Photo is pretty much as it was, only saturation tweaked a bit but a lot of noise as it was taken at almost 2am with ISO800.
You're brave going there at 2AM armed with a grands worth of kit or more Nice pic and glad that you're happy with it! One of those is definitely on my list although it seems to change position on said list all the time
Here's my final answer on the whole UV protector debate... Last weekend at the Hills 2 Mills craft show That big smudge in the middle left sap on my UV filter
Haha! I think you'll need a filter over your whole camera, and maybe even one for yourself if you're gonna be standing there!
WOuldn't have been a bad idea, some of those chips stung a fair bit on impact. It wasn't as cool of a shot as I hoped, but worth trying
Crikey, I played with a Canon 17-40mm L lens today.. OMG! mg: it's fantastic! noticeably much sharper and better contrast than the stock 18-55mm and better contrast than my 10-22mm... so god damn tempted to wack another £500 down!
J-pepper: Where's that night shot taken? I recognise it. I used to live in London, and I feel i've seen it when living there... something tells me it's canary wharf DLR station... or somewhere near there... ..it's bugging me now.. where is it???
Yeah, that's the Mailbox in Birmingham although i can see why you may've thought it looked like a DLR station (or even underground station) in Canary Wharf. I lived in central for 5 years and had a lot of friends who lived around Canary Wharf at that time.
