Cameras

[endersgame]

kbi, your stock lens can focus closer and magnifies more than the 17-85. given your description of the distance and subjects you are taking, a dedicated macro lens is overkill.

you need a wide-angle-zoom that can do maybe 1/4-life size close-ups and you can already do that with your stock lens. just stop down the lens, it sounds like you are shooting wide open..

[magic]

any particular lens filter is good? planing to get my first dslr and len soon so i think its better to have a filter..

[Jonn]

do you really need a filter? to shoot running water you might want a ND filter and if youre scared of scratching your front elements you can always use a hood. unless its absolutely necessary i wouldnt use one

[lowrey]

I've always used a basic UV filter to protect the lens.

[magic]

any particular brand is good? i just new a basic filter which is good protection for lens and no need with special effect when taking images. i know some filter that can apply effects on images.

[lowrey]

some very cheap ones might have unwanted effects on the image due to poor quality, so its worth getting a decent quality one.

[endersgame]

when you put a filter in front of the lens, even if it's a uv or skylight, you are letting in a less light through the glass. you also lose contrast because it's not really using the coating the lens originally came with.

if you must protect the front lens element, use a lens cap. if the lens gets dirty, know how to clean it properly.

filters are also never used in precision studio work because whatever you put in front of the lens will degrade the image quality. so if you want to change color temperature, or control uv, you gel the lights, never the lens..

[Fade to Black]

shooting with 'real' cameras is so much harder

[lowrey]

when you put a filter in front of the lens, even if it's a uv or skylight, you are letting in a less light through the glass. you also lose contrast because it's not really using the coating the lens originally came with.

if you must protect the front lens element, use a lens cap. if the lens gets dirty, know how to clean it properly.

filters are also never used in precision studio work because whatever you put in front of the lens will degrade the image quality. so if you want to change color temperature, or control uv, you gel the lights, never the lens..

I think its worth noting that, if using a good quality protector or UV filter, you most likely won't be able to notice a difference in image quality with your bare eyes. if were talking about beginner or generic photography here (not high precision studio work), I'd say the effects a filter has are irrelevant.

I've always tested filters when placing one on a new lens (I can recall testing on at least a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, 35mm 1.4 L and 16-35mm 2.8 L) and so far I haven't been able to see a difference in quality in full images nor 100% crops.

the reason I do like to keep one on is that, particularly with wide lenses, the glass area can be pretty large and when you shoot anything in non controlled circumstances (cars, kids, nature, parties...), there is always the small chance that something can hit the camera. I've only managed to scratch one filter myself, but rather that than the €1k lens. when my sister bought her first dslr, I told her to put a filter on it. she dropped the camera during the first week, of course lens down, smashing the €25 UV filter in half. she was crying while I used a pair of pliers to get the bent filter off of the lens, which ended up only having a small scratch and still works to this date.

so yes, I advice most people to use filters unless they feel that it will notably affect the quality of their images which in 99.9% of cases it doesn't.

[endersgame]

i will agree the effect of uv filters on image quality is minimal for general use, but i still don't want to pay more to get less or compromise image quality for front element protection. if you feel you will be careless with expensive equipment, best to get insurance..

most of the time, when you buy a lens or camera, the sales person will upsell you on an uv filter. try your best to not waste $100 on some b+w filter made from baller glass. instead, get lens cleaning cloths, cleaning fluid, and a rechargeable dessicant pack.

[lowrey]

well I certainly won't admit to being careless. like I said I've scraped a lens protector only once. but getting a lens fixed or replaced would definitely have been a bigger blow than $35, which I think is a meager price when paying a grand for a lens. from my experience a good protector will not affect image quality in regular or even professional use, so I don't see problem in using one just to be safe.

[endersgame]

it's like the to rubber sole or not thread, all over again..

[magic]

some very cheap ones might have unwanted effects on the image due to poor quality, so its worth getting a decent quality one.

Thanks A. Yes..i need decent ones for only protective purpose. I have seem some kind of catologue for Filters which they shown the quality/effect that will apply to the image. i can see some filter makes the pic more sharp and clear with them.

[lowrey]

I would avoid any special filters like that, a protector such as the Hoya pro1 should do the trick without having any unwanted effects. I have a Marumi uv filter which I've been happy with.

[magic]

Thanks A. will check it out both filters.