B+W UV Filter Justified?
- Thread starter Jagdeep
- Start date
- Status
The only thing to justify is cost I suppose.
Good filters degrade an image less. Poor filters degrade more.
If you have to use a filter, surely you'd want one that offers the least amount of degradation, independent of whether the original image from the camera and/or the lens is fantastic/mediocre/lousy.
Well.. i mean, if the lens absolutely sucks and you got it at a basement bargain price... would it be worthwhile to slap on that expensive filter anyway?
I know I'm not answering the question directly, because this is a decision we cannot make for you
Good filters degrade an image less. Poor filters degrade more.
If you have to use a filter, surely you'd want one that offers the least amount of degradation, independent of whether the original image from the camera and/or the lens is fantastic/mediocre/lousy.
Well.. i mean, if the lens absolutely sucks and you got it at a basement bargain price... would it be worthwhile to slap on that expensive filter anyway?
I know I'm not answering the question directly, because this is a decision we cannot make for you
Yatlapball is right.
good lens goes with good filter
good lens using poor filter, defeat the purpose of getting a good lens
so spend the money within your mean.
good lens goes with good filter
good lens using poor filter, defeat the purpose of getting a good lens
so spend the money within your mean.
u can still use the filter if u r upgrading to DSLR (as long as the lens uses 67mm filter). i look at buying good filter as long term usage vs just using it for the present. :thumbsup:
yalar, all you have now is all the big big L lens liao, where got use 67mm? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
If they made them with 67mm filter threads, I dun mind wor... :bsmilie: if I recall... your 17-55 is also using a b+w right?
**** MAN!
Went to cathay to buy and my card was declined.
Later found it was maxed out???
Checked with HsBC and seems like someone in Italy has got my number and used it for flights for internet bookings???!!!
HSBC investigating now.
Be careful with online transactions.
Went to cathay to buy and my card was declined.
Later found it was maxed out???
Checked with HsBC and seems like someone in Italy has got my number and used it for flights for internet bookings???!!!
HSBC investigating now.
Be careful with online transactions.
It around that price for the 67mm MRC UV Haze 010 filter. But when i got mine last time for my 70-200 f/4, it was $78.
actually i think a 'good' UV filter contributes a small part of a 'good photo'.. and there are so many factors to make a photo perfect, i won't really think an expensive UV filter is need..i don't know how much it degrade an image..have someone really make a comparison?quite curious..
but again, when someone see a good photo..i never see them asking what UV filter..ha =)
but again, when someone see a good photo..i never see them asking what UV filter..ha =)
I guess the coating on the filter plays a part too? I read from somewhere that coating on filters would help to minimize/prevent internal reflection caused by strong sunlight... And B+W filter coating is easier to clean as compared to some other brands.
But I am only using Hoya filters. So cannot really commend too much on B+W.
But I am only using Hoya filters. So cannot really commend too much on B+W.
I will choose B+W, main reason is that it is so much easiler to clean.
IQ wise, think that the difference is quite insignificant as compare with Hoya, but why if you had already spent so much on a expensive lens.
IQ wise, think that the difference is quite insignificant as compare with Hoya, but why if you had already spent so much on a expensive lens.
Allow me to throw a spanner in the works...
Concept 1 - Degrade as least as possible
Assuming that you're not using a premium lens, a lot of compromises would have been made, both optically and mechanically in the lens. Therefore, it needs all the help it can get, and using the very best quality filters will help in any way possible (assuming that user wants to always fit a filter on).
Concept 2 - The lens is not a top performer anyway, why waste money?
Also holds water, because you can only do so much to help a less than ideal or lower quality lens.
Concept 3 - Justifiable depends on a particular lens, and shooting conditions
Purchase of ultra-high quality filters depend largely on shooting conditions, e.g., how often do you shoot into light sources, towards the sun etc? Will you see the difference between a $30 Hoya and a $70 B&W?
Concept 4 - All filters degrade the image, so it's better not to have one
I tend to notice that I take off any filters unless they are absolutely necessary - either to prevent possible damage to the front element, or when the use of a particular filter is essential to getting a picture.
Concept 5 - If I'm spending that much on a filter, I'd rather get a manufacturer's filter
Originally, people only bought B&W as an alternative to buying a Nikon or Canon filter because B&W were still cheaper, but now that the prices are so close, it doesn't make sense to get a B&W when I can get an original which has the (supposedly) same optical quality glass and coatings as my own lens. Also bear in mind that there was a lot of talk about different grades of B&W filters in the open market so how do we know for sure we're only getting the top quality stuff?
Aside - I've found that oil and finger-print smudges are just as easy to clean on a Nikon and Canon filter as a B&W. Pentax SMC filters were more problematic - like Hoya.
Concept 1 - Degrade as least as possible
Assuming that you're not using a premium lens, a lot of compromises would have been made, both optically and mechanically in the lens. Therefore, it needs all the help it can get, and using the very best quality filters will help in any way possible (assuming that user wants to always fit a filter on).
Concept 2 - The lens is not a top performer anyway, why waste money?
Also holds water, because you can only do so much to help a less than ideal or lower quality lens.
Concept 3 - Justifiable depends on a particular lens, and shooting conditions
Purchase of ultra-high quality filters depend largely on shooting conditions, e.g., how often do you shoot into light sources, towards the sun etc? Will you see the difference between a $30 Hoya and a $70 B&W?
Concept 4 - All filters degrade the image, so it's better not to have one
I tend to notice that I take off any filters unless they are absolutely necessary - either to prevent possible damage to the front element, or when the use of a particular filter is essential to getting a picture.
Concept 5 - If I'm spending that much on a filter, I'd rather get a manufacturer's filter
Originally, people only bought B&W as an alternative to buying a Nikon or Canon filter because B&W were still cheaper, but now that the prices are so close, it doesn't make sense to get a B&W when I can get an original which has the (supposedly) same optical quality glass and coatings as my own lens. Also bear in mind that there was a lot of talk about different grades of B&W filters in the open market so how do we know for sure we're only getting the top quality stuff?
Aside - I've found that oil and finger-print smudges are just as easy to clean on a Nikon and Canon filter as a B&W. Pentax SMC filters were more problematic - like Hoya.
Be careful with online transactions
I am interested to know more about this.
I have avoided buying stuff using my credit card on the internet to prevent the same.
How do you think it happened?
Is HSBC going to ask you to pay for whatever the Italian scammer charged to your card?
- Status
