File :-(, x, )
Anonymous !3GqYIJ3Obs
Anyone know of a good site/store to get cheap, but quality filters? all the places i look are selling for $75+ for a 72mm lense.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5200Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix S5200 Ver1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 00:45:07Exposure Time1/26 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/3.5Brightness0.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width639Image Height479RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeUnknownContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusBlur WarningFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
Don't buy cheap filters for any kind of decent lens as you are degrading your image quality. Buy the better brands.
>> Anonymous
Some of the Japanese ones are shit too. Buy quality filters and you won't regret it in the long run.
>> Anonymous
hvstar.com has kenko filters for cheap. they're rebadged hoyas.
>> Anonymous
>>108810
QFT, hvstar is a pretty good company

>>108781
>cheap, but quality

Don't use price as a main point when buying any type of glass. Especially with filters, which you will be able to use on lenses 10, 20 and maybe even 50 years from now. In the grand scheme of things, you won't notice the price difference between a $10 ebay knockoff or a $70 Hoya HMC or $100 B+W, but you will certainly be reminded all the time of the quality difference.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
For the record i have a KODO filter, supposedly japanese made.

its just UV but it doesnt vignette or lose light and I have it to protect not to make effects, for this sort of job a cheap filter is ok.

other than that, i use cokin.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
Unless you're shooting in a place with a lot of dust or the likelihood of liquids splashing is high, UV/clear filters are a waste of time and money. They have the potential to degrade your image quality through distortion and flare, and if you want to protect your lens, you're much better off using a good, rigid (not rubber) lens hood instead. That way you protect the front end of your lens as well as help retain contrast while minimizing lens flare. There are some exceptions, such as with wide-angle lenses that have particularly shallow or nonexistent lens hoods. I have a dedicated hood on my Nikon 24mm f/2, but it's also very shallow, so I also have a multicoated Heliopan UV filter on it.

UV filters and the like are one of the biggest scams heisted upon the photography market.
>> Anonymous
UV filters are for faggots. Unless you shoot film.
>> Anonymous
>>108818
Kodo is known to be a bad name in filters, I suggest you get something better like a B+W or Heliopan.

>>108855
I know almost no one that has ever even considered using an UV filter for actual UV filtering purposes. Nowadays they're just used for protection, if you drop it, etc, the filter will break first. Things will still get inside your lens hood.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>109033
A rigid lens hood provides greater protection from impact than a filter of any kind, and things protruding inside the lens hood is an issue so rarely as to be a non-issue. Additionally, image quality is higher with a properly shaded lens, but again can easily be degraded by a UV filter or the like.
>> Anonymous
>>109034
I'm not saying not to use a lens hood though, I use a (B+W) UV filter and lens hood together. I'd just rather be safe then sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>108857

>>Unless you shoot film.

Why is this? I inherited an EOS 650 that came with 2 lenses, a 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5, and a 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, both of which (after reading this thread) I see UV filters on. Should I take them off? I have a rigid hood for the 28-300.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Why bother with a UV filter? why not use a CPL for daytime shooting since you'll actually put it to use? I did that for a while, even left it on at night too, since i do mostly tripod shots or flash work it made no difference.
>> Anonymous
>>109051
If I use a CPL, there will be an UV in front of it.
Why? I don't want to damage my CPL. A good CPL will cost 10 times more then an UV.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>109155
More like 2.5 stops on average.

>>109153
That's one of the exceptions to the rule and certainly one where using a protective filter of some kind makes a ton of sense. I was speaking more to general-use sort of circumstances.
>> Anonymous
>>109155
more liek always 2 or more stops lolol
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>109191
Yeah, my bad, I checked again it's more around 2 stops, if not a little less. I've never seen it kill 2.5 though. Might be variation in different brands.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
One thing to keep in mind about polarizing filters is that while the physical filter has a uniform density, the effect on relative exposure can vary given the particulars of a scene, lighting conditions, and the orientation of the filter. In practice, one needs to compensate between 2 and 3 stops with a polarizer.
>> Anonymous
and wideangle, polarizer + sky = fail.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>109073

Okay.. i'm pretty sure he's taking the piss here :D

>>109210

ULTRA-wide plus CPL. Usually. It depends though.

I haven't tested it on wider than 25mm (25mm equiv)
>> Anonymous
>>109040

I repeat the question. Why is a UV filter a good idea for film? Or should I take the filters off?
>> Anonymous
>>109687

I think it's because digital isn't affected by UV while film is?