Advice on filters

Thanks everyone for the informative and detailed replies. It really helps me out. I've fallen in love w/ photography over the past couple years... just never took the step to buy a 'real' camera.

To clarify, the filters were Tiffen 72mm. Based on one of the articles posted here, it looks as though they are overpriced for their quality?

Any endorsements for Tiffen here? Or is it all B&W and Hoya?

JRSphoto said:

Ever photo instruction ever given on any planet in any galaxy has demanded that every len's expensive glass be protected by a UV filter to be the sacrificial abuse taker.

Do not recommend that they use a lens hood instead.

Click to expand...

You must be reading too much of Ken Rockwell and have probably seen his aliens while doing so. Of course, he's not a pro but he has pictures of aliens. That must be the galaxy referred to here.

LOL. too much.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

In my opinion, Tiffen are the worse, possibly worse than some of the no-name eBay types. In the Cine world they are better regarded.

I think that the best are B+W, Heliopan and Rodenstock. These all have brass rings, Schott Glass and are mounted unstressed. Under that would be Hoya, but are still very good. It's just for the price of the top Hoyas, one can get a top B+W. Hoya is aluminum ringed and mounts solid. An aluminum ring is much more apt to get stuck in place. That's why they have to make filter wrenches.

My choice for a cp filter is B + W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Filter in Wide Angle Slim Mount, MRC Coated Glass. These run from $100 to $180 depending on the thread size. IMO, these are the very best and what I put on top quality glass. This may be more than you might wish to pay. A lot depends on what you want to put in the optical path.

Sometimes on non-wides I'll use a non-slim version of the same filter and mount a screw on metal hood. This allows easy use. The slim models do not have front threads.

That lenstip article rates this filter number one in not causing flare and contrast loss.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

To all the habitual contrarian posers pretending to know what they are talking about. i.e. uses a hood and not a UV filter to protect the lens.

People who are not habitual contrarians already get it. Before giving me a lecture about ruffling feathers, that is exactly what habitual contrarian posers do every time. Ruffle feather by saying your wrong here is some nonsense to prove it.

Tiffen has been a leading manufacturer and supplier of photographic filters and lens accessories for the consumer/professional imaging and the motion picture and broadcast television industries for over 70 years.

UV Protector

Protects your camera or camcorder lens against dust, moisture, fingerprints, scratches and damage. This filter can be kept on your camera at all times.

LENS PROTECTION FILTERS
“There Is A Difference”

Tiffen offers a number of choices to help protect valuable lenses:

Clear: Optical quality clear glass, the most economical way to protect your lens, is available in Standard, Premium, and 7mm thick.

Standard Clear is 4mm thick. The 7mm thick Clear is the same type of glass as Standard, but 3mm thicker to enable use with certain Arriflex cameras requiring 7mm filter thickness for proper fit. Premium Clear is made of optimum water white glass, giving better light transmission when compared with Standard Clear. Premium Clear is priced higher than Standard Clear.
Light Loss: 0 f-stop UV Absorption: 12%

Sky 1-A: Light pinkish tinted glass for slight warming effect. Useful when shooting on overcast days and in outdoor open shade. Available in standard and wide angle mounts.
Light Loss: 0 f-stop UV Absorption: 45.5%

Haze 1:Clear glass filter absorbs more UV light than Sky 1-A. Helpful when photographing mountain, aerial, and marine scenes, where haze can make photographs lose color and clarity. Available in standard and wide angle mounts.
Light Loss: 0 f-stop UV Absorption: 71%

812® Color Warming Filter: Exclusive Tiffen filter that warms skin tones and reduces the excess blue cast often caused by electronic flash, video lights, and outdoor open shade. Minimizes the lighting flashback often seen on cheek and forehead areas. Creates a greater warming effect than Sky 1-A. Works equally well with photo, digital and video lenses. The 812 filter forms part of the combination in all Tiffen “Warm ” filters, such as Warm Polarizer, Warm Soft FX, Warm Pro Mist, Warm Black Pro Mist, Warm Center Spot, and Warm UV.
Light Loss: 1/3 f-stop UV Absorption: 50%

Warm UV: Exclusive Tiffen filter that combines a Warm 812 and an “extreme haze penetrating” feature. Much greater UV absorption than Haze 1. Very useful, all-around filter is ideal for lens protection and maximum UV absorption, while improving images of people, images shot with electronic flash or video lights, and images shot in outdoor open shade.
Light Loss: 1/3 f-stop UV Absorption: 97%

http://www.tiffen.com/tips_lens_protection.html

Before giving me a lecture about ruffling feathers, that is exactly what habitual contrarian posers do every time. Ruffle feather by saying your wrong here is some nonsense to prove it.

Guidenet said:

In my opinion, Tiffen are the worse, possibly worse than some of the no-name eBay types. In the Cine world they are better regarded.

I think that the best are B+W, Heliopan and Rodenstock. These all have brass rings, Schott Glass and are mounted unstressed. Under that would be Hoya, but are still very good.

Click to expand...

Can't argue with any that, but I will add Kenko to the list of desirables.
Their "Pro 1" seems to be the Hoya "Pro 1", just with a different name on it.
The only Tiffen I would allow near my camera is this:
http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

I won't bother quoting any of the text since I didn't bother to even read it myself. You're just in love with that term 'habitual contrarian'. Did you just read it in a book or something, or is it something you made up? As has been pointed out, few are going to respect someone who consistently uses derogatory replies to try to make a point. If you want people to actually take an interest in anything you have to say, you should find a more positive way to state an opinion. Just a suggestion. Take it and do what you will.

Kind regards,
Mark

Your it. There are quantitative comparative lab tests that put Tiffen at the back of the pack for UV filters. The same lab tested CP filters and the list of good CPs gets even shorter than UV.

40 years of photography (which predates MC lenses) and I haven't scratched a lens once but I can attest to the benefits of a lens hood.

A. C.

--
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me send money.

WobblyGoblin said:

I found this link very useful when I was looking for polarising filters - there is a ranking of performance but, more importantly, there is also a value for money index which gives you an idea of the best value polarisers. I can't remember who originally posted it but I was very grateful.

http://lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

Click to expand...

+1

The Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D was one of the best and excellent VFM.

Happy shooting, Lizzie.

You must really be bored. Posting nothing of substance just the habitual stuff.

What we have is a paste from Tiffen's website. An advertisement. The truth is that Tiffen went bankrupt back in 2003 and the new company with the same name does do well in the movie and television industry where that's their core business. They don't do so well in the still camera business and for good reason. It's not their focus. They specialize in special effects filters that do haze or stars, not quality optics for still photography.

They've closed most of their manufacturing facilities and might be subcontracting out these days, but you won't find that in someone's cut and paste of an advertisement.

You see, that's the problem with much of your material. You're insulting then paste other's work. You did it with Arizona Highways and now Tiffen's website. It all goes back to credibility. You're a relatively new wedding photographer in Seattle. Why try to act like something you're not? Is business so slow you’ve become this bitter?

Put yourself out of your misery or get some help.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

jarspag said:

Hi Guys -

Can you share some advice on UV/Polarizing filters?

How much should I expect to spend? Is it worth buying the high quality filters?

I went to the store today... and the guy tried to sell me a polarizing filter for $65 and a UV filter for $45 ... explaining the cheaper ones were too bad of quality to put on my Tamron 18-270 lens... I wasn't planning on spending that much on filters...

Please advise!

Click to expand...

Nothing causes more confusion and problems for beginners as filters do. That’s because there’s so much information out there that it’s hard to separate the good from the bad, and the relevant from the irrelevant. I’ve done a lot of research on filters and here’s what I’ve come up with...

Is it worth buying high quality filters? Yes it is. There is no greater in-your-face convincer of this than the polarizer tests at LensTip.com. See the tests here...

http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

Polarizers - Based on LensTip’s testing results, I bought a Marumi DHG Super Circular polarizer for $68 for my Nikon D90 lenses. I would rather use a B+W KSM, but they cost more than twice as much, and I’m not a pro so “almost as good” is good enough for me. A good polarizer is a valuable tool...one that is worth learning how to use properly.

UV filters - You do not need a UV filter. UV filters are for film. Sensors are, by design, unaffected by UV light. Info on UV filters is the type of info I’d refer to as irrelevant.

Clear protective filters - This is a personal choice. Here’s the way I view it...if you care more about your lens than you do your pictures, then use a protective filter. If you care more about your pictures than you do your lens, then don’t.

Unless you buy a B+W XS Pro protective filter for 70 bucks, there’s probably a good chance that any other filter you buy will create reflections in your images. A hood on your lens provides pretty good protection without affecting the image in a bad way. But in the end, this is a personal call. I personally would rather have to buy another $500 lens than have reflections in all my images. And they will be in all your images...whether you see them or not.

.

Graystar said:

Unless you buy a B+W XS Pro protective filter for 70 bucks, there’s probably a good chance that any other filter you buy will create reflections in your images. A hood on your lens provides pretty good protection without affecting the image in a bad way. But in the end, this is a personal call. I personally would rather have to buy another $500 lens than have reflections in all my images. And they will be in all your images...whether you see them or not.

Click to expand...

Here is a good demonstration of filter reflections:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=35113297

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

JRSphoto said:

Ever photo instruction ever given on any planet in any galaxy has demanded that every len's expensive glass be protected by a UV filter to be the sacrificial abuse taker.

Click to expand...

Except for some "special" people, the rest of us have not been to other galaxies, let alone other planets, so we will have to take your word on that.

JRSphoto said:

Do not recommend that they use a lens hood instead.

Click to expand...

I recommend using a lens hood instead.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

Guidenet said:

It’s easy in Web forums to be callous and obnoxious because you’re basically anonymous. Sometimes sitting in the chair in front of the computer one can be anyone they wish from the race car driver to the professional photographer.

Click to expand...

Hey, careful Craig.........some of us are race car drivers/owners........ ;-)



Regards,
Hank

Wow. Now that's a Race Car driver.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Patco said:

Graystar said:

Unless you buy a B+W XS Pro protective filter for 70 bucks, there’s probably a good chance that any other filter you buy will create reflections in your images. A hood on your lens provides pretty good protection without affecting the image in a bad way. But in the end, this is a personal call. I personally would rather have to buy another $500 lens than have reflections in all my images. And they will be in all your images...whether you see them or not.

Click to expand...

Here is a good demonstration of filter reflections:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=35113297

Click to expand...

Yes, that's pretty clearly a filter issue. The problem with filters is worse and more devious than that, however...even when you don't see horrible flare as in this example, there is an overall haze that reduces contrast. Clear filters are simply not needed!

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info

"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his

name, because America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." Newt Gingrich

I have shot many many thousands of photos and cannot recall ever heaving a filter reflection.

The internet is full of rare occurrences that posers seize upon to pretend that they are the all wise and knowing ones. They say don't use that piece of cheap glass to protect that massively expensive glass. You will degrade image quality blah blah blah.

Here is a link for all you pretenders that say don't use the cheap protective glass.

"Drop Test: Yosemite National Park, USA

As part of my ongoing commitment to science, I had a generous Yosemite workshop attendee volunteer his 18-200mm for testing.

He dropped it on concrete from 1 meter (3 feet).

You can see the result. That's the filter that cracked, not the lens.

He emptied glass of his Hoya 81A filter into his uneaten scrambled eggs at the cafeteria, ..."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-drop-test.htm

JRSphoto said:

I have shot many many thousands of photos and cannot recall ever heaving a filter reflection.

The internet is full of rare occurrences that posers seize upon to pretend that they are the all wise and knowing ones. They say don't use that piece of cheap glass to protect that massively expensive glass. You will degrade image quality blah blah blah.

Here is a link for all you pretenders that say don't use the cheap protective glass.

"Drop Test: Yosemite National Park, USA

As part of my ongoing commitment to science, I had a generous Yosemite workshop attendee volunteer his 18-200mm for testing.

He dropped it on concrete from 1 meter (3 feet).

You can see the result. That's the filter that cracked, not the lens.

He emptied glass of his Hoya 81A filter into his uneaten scrambled eggs at the cafeteria, ..."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-drop-test.htm

Click to expand...

The internet is full of rare occurrences that posers seize upon to pretend that they are the all wise and knowing ones.

JRSphoto said:

I have shot many many thousands of photos and cannot recall ever heaving a filter reflection.

Click to expand...

And you know you didn’t have a problem because you took the filter off and took a second shot, and the two shots look exactly the same...right? This is the problem when people say things like “I’ve never had” or “I’ve never seen”...you may not recognize an aberration until you see the same scene shot with equipment of a different quality or configuration. It's no different than this recent iPhone nonsense with people wanting an iPhone forum because someone decided to shoot a model with an iPhone. But if they could see those same images taken with a full-frame or MF camera, they would see how bad the iphone really is. But those images don't exist.

This is why the LensTip.com polarizer tests are important for people to review. They show a night scene with and without the polarizer to demonstate the reflections...
http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

I’ve seen fingerprint smears on a polarizer show up on images, but the only way to recognize that there was a problem was to rotate the polarizer. Only then was the problem, and the extent of it, clear as day. So unless you have control images to prove that your thousands of images don’t have any aberrations, I’d say that at this time your thousands of images don’t prove anything.

JRSphoto said:

Here is a link for all you pretenders that say don't use the cheap protective glass.

"Drop Test: Yosemite National Park, USA
...

Click to expand...

The fact that a handful of clumsy people have had the extraordinary luck of having a lens saved by a filter, does not convince me to place every image I take at risk of aberrations. In this case the cure is worse than the disease.

.

JRSphoto said:

He dropped it on concrete from 1 meter (3 feet).

You can see the result. That's the filter that cracked, not the lens.

Click to expand...

A thin, fragile, broken filter does not automatically equate to a saved lens ;-)

Chances are that without the filter there would have been less damage, ie. no broken shards of glass to possibly scratch the front element.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels