What is your idea of "budget" and what kind of quality is acceptable to you?
Assuming you're using an ultrawide, which don't come cheap, don't cheap out on the filter.
Actually no-filter is the cheapest, and will give you the best quality and no vignetting. No protection of course, so using a hood is probably a good idea.
Much better protection that these wanna-be protector filters. Your lens can stand a lot and a finger print or even a dead fly will not cause any trouble.hv consider "filter-less" b4, but... is new lens mah, must be "kia si" a bit :bsmilie:
using hood only can provide proper poctection?
actually i totally got no idea on the pricing of tis kind of filter.. with the budget of $50~100 can get a decent 1?
16mm consider UW?
hv consider "filter-less" b4, but... is new lens mah, must be "kia si" a bit :bsmilie:
using hood only can provide proper poctection?
normally 16-17mm on a normal APS body shouldnt have vignetting with normal filter on.
Currently using Tokina 11-16 filterless. If I were to get a filter for it. I would go for ultraslim one.
Have you tried whether vignetting occurs on your 16mm with normal filter?
Thanks guys for ur replied & sources of the info, learnt new things..
I hv tried using the normal filter n shoot in 16mm, the vignetting was occured obviously..
a550 + 16-105
From many online discussions, the 16-105 is known to vignette with regular thickness filters. You will need a slim filter. I recommend the Kenko pro-1D protector filter.