Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Mark F on May 28, 2009, 12:37:51 pm
-
I need to buy a filter to protect the front of my 16-35mm 2.8L II which takes 82mm filters. I've always used either B+W or Singh Ray filters but am surprised to see that 82mm filters are very pricey as compared to the 77mm that all my other lenses take. Has anyone actually determined if, for example, B+W is observably better than Tiffen? The B+W 82mm goes for $139 while the Tiffen sells for $55, about 60% less. Obviously it would be dumb to put inferior glass in front of an expensive lens and I'll pay the $139 if I have to. But I'm wondering if this is a case of "you get what you pay for" and the B+W really is better than Tiffen, or if this is just another example of marketing hype?
-
But I'm wondering if this is a case of "you get what you pay for" and the B+W really is better than Tiffen, or if this is just another example of marketing hype?
Oh boy - this thread could get ugly quick given the recent battles on filters vs non-filters over on dpreview a weeks ago!
My thought (and understand there is a very wide spectrum of opinion on this topic and *very* passionate opinions at that) is:
a ) "protection" filters aren't neccessary unless you are specifically in situations that would benefit from one (salt spray, rock quarry dust, etc) and you're better off leaving the filter OFF unless you're in a situation where it's needed.
b ) That being said, yes, the B+W is a better filter. Don't have any links handy, but folks have done spectral transmission tests with various filters and what you'll see with the really good filters (B+W, Heliopan) is even transmission across the visible spectral band that is NOT being filtered out, whereas with the cheaper filters you'll see *uneven* transmission - a dip in the greens or a notch here or whatever, so my thought is if you've spent 1-2 grand on a lens, it makes little sense to go cheap when you arrive at a situation where you need to put a filter on the lens.
-m
-
Well, I was not aware of that discussion and I'm not looking to start WWIII over this. But for this specific lens Canon recommends that a Canon Protect filter (whatever that is) be attached in order "to ensure dust and water resistant performance". It seems to me that $55 for a UV or skylight filter is not really cheap as these are not particularly sophisticated filters. That is why I'm wondering if the B+W at $139 is really better than the Tiffen, or if B+W is just using its brand name to charge more.
[quote name='NashvilleMike' date='May 28 2009, 01:22 PM' post='287297']
Oh boy - this thread could get ugly quick given the recent battles on filters vs non-filters over on dpreview a weeks ago!
......so my thought is if you've spent 1-2 grand on a lens, it makes little sense to go cheap when you arrive at a situation where you need to put a filter on the lens.
-
Yeah, it is worth more. You're putting a flat piece of glass in front of your lens. You really want to minimize reflections. That's advice is based on the coatings on the B+W. It ignores the quality of the B+W glass versus the Tiffen glass.
Hoya SHMC filters are also nice but really difficult to clean.
-
there are certainly conditions of dust and wet where protection is desirable, but particularly with a wide angle lens i'd only use a filter under these circumstances
and i agree that B+W is worth a bit more
-
I always have a UV filter on mine for protection. I used to think it didn't matter, but then one day I see a huge scratch on the filter that I don't know how it got there...
Cheaper to replace a filter than a pricey lens.
That said, if it's a cheap or used lens under $100 or so in value, a filter probably isn't going to make any difference, as a good filter is almost the cost of the lens.
-
OK, I'm convinced - B+W it will be.
While hunting around on the web I came across this discussion http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36273 (http://birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36273) . About half way down there is a discussion of how (and whether) UV filters adversely effect auto-focus, at least on telephoto lenses. This is a site for bird photographers run by Arthur Morris, and these guys use super telephotos so I do not know if the same would hold for wide angles. I guess the only way to find out is to buy the filter and make my own tests.