Canon lenses

ldmelsa said:
if you can't see it at 100% magnification then it's superfluous
Click to expand...

You can see it at 100% - that's my point. But at the same time, as I've said many times before, IS doesn't magically stabilize your whole image. It only reduces camera shake relative to the focus point. It screws with the rest of the image. I think I've even posted or linked to an example of that before.
 
koffiejunkie said:
You can see it at 100% - that's my point. But at the same time, as I've said many times before, IS doesn't magically stabilize your whole image. It only reduces camera shake relative to the focus point. It screws with the rest of the image. I think I've even posted or linked to an example of that before.
Click to expand...

yeah - it's better to have fast lens
it's just that, lots of lenses like canon 18-200is & nikon 18-200vr come with IS - luckily one can switch it off

oh btw KJ
check all the DOF of my 50mm1.8 @ f22
this lens works well for this (objects have correct perspective)

my_old_n64.jpg


got an NTSC one in 1996 - months before the PAL version (could not wait - mario64 FTW!!! yeah! :D)


__
 
ldmelsa said:
that's a fast shutter speed for an ultra-wide
that shot was taken at 10mm
you should be able to hold 1/8 at 10mm
btw - no ultra-wides have IS (because it would be pointless)
Click to expand...
ld, I have said this before, but you're using the 1/f rule, which was thought up as an aid for shooting with telephoto lenses (> 100mm). The lowest shutter speed you should use for handholding is 1/60s with shorter lenses (although many of us have used lower).
 
that's true what you are saying
but can your 12mp cam see that?
if it looks sharp at 100% in photoshop, then i'm happy (or am i missing somwthing)
 
100% in photoshop? What does that equate to in print sizes?
 
mercurial said:
Is it worthwhile getting a filter for my 70-200mm f4 L USM?
Click to expand...

UV or CPL? 1 school of thought is to protect the front element of your lense, the other is why put a cheap filter in fromt of a R8000 lense. Personally, I find the kenko filters work quite well, though it's a personal choice....
 
mercurial said:
Is it worthwhile getting a filter for my 70-200mm f4 L USM?
Click to expand...
My vote . . use the lens hood. Its massive on the 70-200 and will afford you all the protection you'll ever need.

I do have filters for most of my lenses but unless I'm going to the beach they're largely unused due to increased incidences of flaring.

Canon recommends filters for one of my lenses but that is for sealing it against the elements. The 70-200 f/4 L isnt weather proofed so it probably wont help much.
 
KBrown said:
UV or CPL? 1 school of thought is to protect the front element of your lense, the other is why put a cheap filter in fromt of a R8000 lense. Personally, I find the kenko filters work quite well, though it's a personal choice....
Click to expand...

I think there's a third option - use a high quality filter instead of a cheap one. I really can't see a difference in my shots with or without my Hoya Pro UV, although the one time I did get pretty bad flaring, I did have the filter but not the hood on (24-105L). But this lens has a known issue with flaring on a certain batch, and mine is part of that batch, so it's hard to know for sure if the UV had anything to do with it.

With regards to the UV protecting the lens, I know there are a few lenses that require this for sealing - bwana's 16-35, I think, and from what I've heard the 17-55 f/2.8 too. But I don't for a moment think it protects the front element. The front element on most lenses are tough as nails. I have dropped my Sigma 10-20 once smack on the front element (it had the hood on but unfortunately the hood is so short it didn't help) on a cobblestone surface, and this made not a scratch on it. This was shortly after I got it, and for months after that my pictures from it has been sharp right through. Unfortunately I dropped it again in September this year, this time on its side, and now it's gone soft - sending it in tomorrow.

Where I do think the filter protects the lens is the thread. The thread is far more vulnerable to impact, and here the filter clearly absorbs the impact.
 
KBrown said:
UV or CPL? 1 school of thought is to protect the front element of your lense, the other is why put a cheap filter in fromt of a R8000 lense. Personally, I find the kenko filters work quite well, though it's a personal choice....
Click to expand...

Not sure. The guy said it was a pro Kenko filter. Priced about R350-ish.

bwana said:
My vote . . use the lens hood. Its massive on the 70-200 and will afford you all the protection you'll ever need.

I do have filters for most of my lenses but unless I'm going to the beach they're largely unused due to increased incidences of flaring.

Canon recommends filters for one of my lenses but that is for sealing it against the elements. The 70-200 f/4 L isnt weather proofed so it probably wont help much.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Where I do think the filter protects the lens is the thread. The thread is far more vulnerable to impact, and here the filter clearly absorbs the impact.
Click to expand...
Get a cheap filter (of course an expensive one will do just as well :p) and pop the glass out - its held in there with a little spring ring.

Voila - thread protected without the extra layer of glass. :)
 
bwana said:
Get a cheap filter (of course an expensive one will do just as well :p) and pop the glass out - its held in there with a little spring ring.

Voila - thread protected without the extra layer of glass. :)
Click to expand...

Nice - I haven't thought of that :)
 
mercurial said:
Is it worthwhile getting a filter for my 70-200mm f4 L USM?
Click to expand...

+1 on Bwana's recommendation. The lens hood also helps keep the light out from the side, one thing I found very useful when there's a lot of light to go about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X