filters?

[Skeptic_07]

So, i just picked up a nice new Rebel XS (cheap!) and it seems really great so far. Anyways, my question is what is a good filter for shooting the tank? UV, polarized, etc.. ? I'd like to use a cheap filter instead of a lens cover to keep the dust off it. If i get one of these cheap filter kits such as

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Dig...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237571844&sr=8-1

will they make my shots look crappy? They can't be good quality filters and i'm not really looking for a filter, more of just a clear lens over. If you think this is a stupid idea please enlighten me. I'd just rather not use the lens cover because I am going to lose it if i do. Thanks!

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Re: filters?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14653680#post14653680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
So, i just picked up a nice new Rebel XS (cheap!)

Yes, very cheap!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14653680#post14653680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

Anyways, my question is what is a good filter for shooting the tank? UV, polarized, etc.. ?

A polarizing filter is a specialty filter that eliminates reflections. This is good if you are shooting through a window, or a top down shot into your tank. UV filters...well I don't think they do much good at all. Just my personal opinion but...they are pointless.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14653680#post14653680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

I'd like to use a cheap filter instead of a lens cover to keep the dust off it. If i get one of these cheap filter kits such as

IMO there is no such thing as a good cheap filter. If you want to get a filter get a nice filter or do not bother (IMO).
EDIT: Wait wait I am just reading this again, instead of the black plastic lens cover, you want to just cover it with the cheapest UV filter you can find, so you can just shoot right through the dust? What?!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14653680#post14653680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

will they make my shots look crappy?

Yes, which is what makes them pointless.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14653680#post14653680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

They can't be good quality filters and I'm not really looking for a filter, more of just a clear lens over. If you think this is a stupid idea please enlighten me. I'd just rather not use the lens cover because I am going to lose it if i do. Thanks!

Well a polarizing filter or neutral density filter are certainly not clear lens covers. People use filters to make special effects. They make the sky bluer, take away reflections, warm or cool an image, makes things which are too bright darker so that the camera won't blow highlights. Filters are not clear covers. You have a lens cap for that. The black plastic thing that clips on the end of your lens. When you are shooting take it off. When you are not shooting put it on. I do think buying cheap UV filters to keep fingerprints off your lens is a very silly idea. What do you think they made the inside of t-shirts for?

 

[IPT]

Ditto to all the above. BTW, they make a little string sort of thing that you can attach to the camera strap and lens cap so it is always hagning there. Won't lose it that way...

 

[jedininja]

there are pros and cons to using UV filters in protecting your lens. But the main thing is do not use a cheap filter. Cheap filters are just like cheap lenses, but worst. There is no point in getting a nice camera if you want to put cheap glass in front of it and get bad pictures.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I understand "frugal is the new cool", but in photography it could slow you to a crawl. I just sacrifice everything else for better photo equipment lol. Contrary to what some may say, experience has taught me that better cameras, lenses, speed lights, filters, tripods, ect. ect. really do make a huge impact on the quality of your images. If you don't know how to use good equipment it won't help you. Knowing how to use bad equipment should give better results, but it is a much more gut wrenching and humiliating scenario. There isn't anything more frustrating than knowing exactly how to capture a great shot and coming away with nothing but throw-aways because of the contents of your camera bag.

 

[xtm]

Re: filters?

So, i just picked up a nice new Rebel XS (cheap!) and it seems really great so far. Anyways, my question is what is a good filter for shooting the tank? UV, polarized, etc.. ? I'd like to use a cheap filter instead of a lens cover to keep the dust off it.

For top down shooting, you can try a polarizer to reduce the light reflections from your bulbs. For macros, a company called Canon makes the 500D and 250D diopters that you can try.

Filters can't really "prevent" dust. The rubber gaskets in your lens will do that.

will they make my shots look crappy?

Not necessarily but very possible.

They can't be good quality filters and i'm not really looking for a filter, more of just a clear lens over. If you think this is a stupid idea please enlighten me. I'd just rather not use the lens cover because I am going to lose it if i do.

Not necessarily a bad idea but it just depends on what you shoot. I have a HOYA [UV] filter that I put on to protect the front element of my lens.. BUT ONLY when I shoot BMX races, where tiny rocks fly all over the place. I'd rather break an $80 filter than break the front element of a $1200 lens.

That being said, that is the ONLY TIME I ever use a UV filter. when I go hiking, my lens is naked with no filter attached. Filters could compromise image quality no matter how high quality it is.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

That is a very good point. If I was shooting in a sand storm I would want to use a UV filter.

 

[shag26272]

Can someone recommend a polarized filter? I have a Nikon D60 with a 60mm Micro lense.

 

[xtm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14662142#post14662142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shag26272
Can someone recommend a polarized filter? I have a Nikon D60 with a 60mm Micro lense.

B+W, Hoya, and Heliopan are the "quality" ones. Choose Multi-Coated whenever you can (to minimize lens flares)

 

[Skeptic_07]

I planned on getting a 100mm macro and i just thought that it would be better to do the t-shirt trick on a cheap filter rather than directly on the lens but if its really going to effect image quality i guess i wont waste my $7.... (dodgy) I actually visited a camera store this weekend and picked up a couple UV filters for about $20 each, i don't remember the brand but they came in a plastic case so they're probably pretty decent. They seem to be working just fine. Now i can leave the lens cover in the bag while I carry the camera around and shoot, which has been basically every waking hour since i brought the camera home on friday. Before that I was putting the lens cover on and taking it off between subjects, maybe i'm just being overly careful with my new toy.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14669706#post14669706 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xtm
B+W, Hoya, and Heliopan are the "quality" ones. Choose Multi-Coated whenever you can (to minimize lens flares)

The only caveat to that comment is that if you go Hoya, get the PRO version. The standard one is put together with a really flimsy snap-ring and it's garbage.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14671935#post14671935 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
I planned on getting a 100mm macro and i just thought that it would be better to do the t-shirt trick on a cheap filter rather than directly on the lens but if its really going to effect image quality i guess i wont waste my $7.... (dodgy) I actually visited a camera store this weekend and picked up a couple UV filters for about $20 each, i don't remember the brand but they came in a plastic case so they're probably pretty decent. They seem to be working just fine. Now i can leave the lens cover in the bag while I carry the camera around and shoot, which has been basically every waking hour since i brought the camera home on friday. Before that I was putting the lens cover on and taking it off between subjects, maybe i'm just being overly careful with my new toy.

To be honest I don't even use lens covers. I know ::gasp::, and I am not recommending this as practice for anyone else to do. I have some very expensive lenses (the 100mm f/2.8 macro is my 2nd least expensive out of 5), and I don't use the lens caps. I do have a lens hood for every one of my lenses however. This hood stays attached to the front of my lens at all times. A large LowePro backpack keeps them nice and snug for when I need the lenses. I feel that they are safe in the bag. So again, and I am not recommending this, I don't even use the lens caps. A hood takes their place. I do use the caps for the back of the lens however.

A $20 filter is still a cheap filter. This is an analogy I have posted on these boards several times.

You just got your 100mm f/2.8 macro. That is a very nice lens and you should be proud, excited, and everything else. Now, what makes that 100mm f/2.8 macro so excellent of a lens is that the image is SO cut your eyeball sharp. The minute details, invisible to the naked eye, that this lens can pick out are astounding. Lets say the 100mm f/2.8 macro is a Starfire glass reef tank.

Why do people buy Starfire reef tanks? Because the quality of the glass makes the human eye perceive there is no glass at all. Would you buy a Starfire glass tank and then cover the outside with a sheet of Plexiglas to prevent your expensive tank from being scratched? Of course not...that is silly. The Plexiglas defeats the whole point of the Starfire. You might as well make the whole tank out of Plexiglas to begin with.

Well would you cover your "Starfire" lens with a "Plexiglas" filter? That is what you are trying to do. Do you see why we are screaming "NO!" now?

 

[Skeptic_07]

2nd least?!! sheesh! Yeah, I see your point. When you put it that way it makes sense.