Jump to content
IGNORED

Photography Equipment & Software Thread

rundll

By rundll
in Creative

 Share

Recommended Posts

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

I won the auction!

Got the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, the EW-83 J hood and a 77mm UV filter for the grand total of 529 GBP including shipping. That's about as much as a new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM with the official Canon hood and an UV filter would have cost me, so I'm quite chuffed.

I just hope it arrives in one piece and is in such good condition as the seller says...

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gerald.d

gerald.d

Posted
Posted

I've read that a filter is not only good for protection but also to keep out dust ... at least with this lens. So I'll leave it on for a while. I'm going to need a circular polariser though, which probably won't be cheap at 77mm.

Err, the dust will just settle on the filter, rather than the front lens element, surely?

I can't believe for one moment that the dust could actually get inside the lens itself via the front element?

Talking of lenses, this is one of the ones I'm currently awaiting delivery on.

SR7256SAXLC.jpg

homerdrool.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

I can't believe for one moment that the dust could actually get inside the lens itself via the front element?

On one site I've read that this type of lens is a bit notorious for dragging in dust, although the reports are conflicting - some people suffer from it, others don't. Maybe it's just a couple of production runs that are a bit faulty. The review sites don't mention it, although they may not have had the lenses long enough in their possession when writing the text to notice faults like this (I imagine the clogging up is a process of months rather than days).

The risk with buying second hand is that you just don't know what you're going to get, so this is a bit of a gamble. But as the seller said it was in excellent condition all round, I'm going to chargeback his arse if it turns out to be a dud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
Posted

Stick the filter on, take some pictures, take it off, take some more pictures, compare. If the UV filter doesn't cause any image quality problems, leave it on for protection. Job done.

Most people will tell you they're either invaluable or useless, you'll have to decide for yourself. I keep mine on my main lens as I can't see any IQ/focusing problems.

Wikipedia pretty much has it right:

UV filters are used to reduce haziness created by ultraviolet light. A UV filter is mostly transparent to visible light, and can be left on the lens for nearly all shots. UV filters are often used for lens protection, much like clear filters. A strong UV filter, such as a Haze-2A or UV17, cuts off some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum, and so has a pale yellow color; these strong filters are more effective at cutting haze, and can reduce purple fringing in digital cameras. Strong UV filters are also sometimes used for warming color photos taken in shade with daylight-type film.

While in certain cases (such as harsh environments) a protection filter may be necessary, there are also downsides to this practice. Arguments for the use of protection filters include:

If the lens is dropped, the filter may well suffer scratches or breakage instead of the front lens element.

One can clean the filter frequently without having to worry about damaging the lens coatings; a filter scratched by cleaning is much less expensive to replace than a lens.

If there is blowing sand the filter may protect the lens from abrasion from sand

Some lenses like Canon's L series lenses require the use of a filter to complete the weather sealing

And arguments against their use include:

Adding another element degrades image quality due to aberration and flare.

It may reduce the use of lens hoods, since threading a lens hood on top of the clear filter might cause vignetting on some lenses, and since not all clear filters would even have threads allowing a hood to be attached.

If the ring of the filter is struck in a drop it may shatter the filter and cause scratches to the front element rather than a bend in the filter ring of the lens barrel

Additionally, users of UV filters must be careful about the quality of such filters. There is a wide variance in the performance of these filters with respect to their ability to block UV light. Also in lower quality filters, problems with autofocus and image degradation have been noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicky

Nicky

Posted
Posted

blunket - search for the strobist blog, that'll tell you everything about wireless flash systems - check the lighting 101's etc

As for UV filters. As the sensors of todays SLRs are protected against UV i see no need to stick a UV filter on the lens - more glass = less light and less quality.

I personally don't use any UV filters on my lenses. a hood/ careful attention to my surroundings and not being inherently clumsy usually gives me adequate protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dingleberry

Dingleberry

Posted
Posted

On one site I've read that this type of lens is a bit notorious for dragging in dust, although the reports are conflicting - some people suffer from it, others don't. Maybe it's just a couple of production runs that are a bit faulty. The review sites don't mention it, although they may not have had the lenses long enough in their possession when writing the text to notice faults like this (I imagine the clogging up is a process of months rather than days).

The risk with buying second hand is that you just don't know what you're going to get, so this is a bit of a gamble. But as the seller said it was in excellent condition all round, I'm going to chargeback his arse if it turns out to be a dud.

I don't use a filter on mine, and while there is a little dust inside the lens it doesn't affect the image.

DB: I've got a 100mm L IS Macro and it's one of my favourite lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
Posted

blunket - search for the strobist blog, that'll tell you everything about wireless flash systems - check the lighting 101's etc

As for UV filters. As the sensors of todays SLRs are protected against UV i see no need to stick a UV filter on the lens - more glass = less light and less quality.

I personally don't use any UV filters on my lenses. a hood/ careful attention to my surroundings and not being inherently clumsy usually gives me adequate protection.

Thing is, if you can prove to yourself that there's no noticeable loss of IQ by actually testing it yourself, you might as well use it. It's to protect from things you can't account for, however careful you're being. They're very handy when you're shooting in light rain and having to wipe the lens constantly, as was the case for me yesterday. I probably wouldn't bother with one on a cheaper lens though, I certainly wouldn't bother if any self-tests demonstrated IQ reduction. I take it off when I'm in a controlled environment, but when I'm wandering around outside it stays on for peace of mind.

The UV protection itself is redundant, it's just that the filter offers some protection without a loss of IQ. I'm betting the really cheap ones cause some serious problems though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

I find it always hard to judge testimonials on their merits. Like (pro-)audio, flatscreen fetishists or videogamers some people can be unbelievably anal and condemn something that's more or less invisible to most people to be the biggest dealbreaker in history. When reading reviews about the Tiffen 77mm UV filter that is supposed to come with my 17-55, I read 5 star reviews of people who are perfectly happy with it to 1 star reviews of people saying it causes reflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dingleberry

Dingleberry

Posted
Posted

Don't tell me that.

I wanted to hear that it was rubbish. That said its a pretty reasonable price. Hmm. How's it for hand held macro shots in good light ? I know I should be using a tripod etc but things which are alive tend to move. I'm anticipating using it with a beanbag or handheld most of the time.

It really is far from rubbish, I use it handheld all the time, often using live view to get down to the level of the subject. Makes for lovely smooth bokeh too.

This is F/8, and I should have gone to F/11 as the edge nearest the camera is slightly OOF:

5091052640_1a0f2a061b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sapa

Sapa

Posted
Posted

I've got the older Canon 100mm Macro 2.8. It is a stunning bit of kit so I can only imagine how good the L lens is. The macro lens is probably my favourite lens out of all my ones. I'd recommend a macro lens to anyone. It's widely regarded as great for portrait work too. Half the time I don't even use it for ultra close-ups.

All 100mm 2.8 Macro shots

4271552684_ec6ec8b59a_z.jpg?zz=1

4288429028_07deac0936_z.jpg

4647241556_3c38db2f51_z.jpg

4783142147_5726cb7183_z.jpg

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gerald.d

gerald.d

Posted
Posted

Really nice. Did you crop the last one, or do you really get such an extraordinary magnification with this lens? If so, I might need one grnnng.

It can do 1:1 (i.e. real life size = size on the sensor. If the subject being photographed is 2cm long, it will make an image 2cm long on the sensor).

You probably won't want to click on this link:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-100mm-f-2.8-l-is-usm-macro-lens-review.aspx

Nor look at the summary quote from the review that I've put in this spoiler:

I called the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Canon's "Most fun per dollar lens". While that lens is less expensive, I'm thinking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens may be the new holder of this title. The improvements in this lens, especially the Hybrid IS, go a long way toward increasing the fun-ness. And the results are definitely fun-inducing. This is a highly recommended lens.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
footle

footle

Posted
Posted

Use shutter priority mode, surely? Work out what speed's acceptable for moving fish (e.g. 1/120), lock that in, then let the camera worry about the aperture etc. It'll probably end up using max aperture the whole time, but it might stop down if the going's good.

Consider spot metering too - certainly if your fish is lighter/darker than the surrounding water.

EDIT: Just saw your pics in the photo thread - nice!

Or if it was a Nikon - auto-iso mode, with the shutter speed set to 1/120 (or whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap

Posted
Posted

It can do 1:1 (i.e. real life size = size on the sensor. If the subject being photographed is 2cm long, it will make an image 2cm long on the sensor).

You probably won't want to click on this link:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-100mm-f-2.8-l-is-usm-macro-lens-review.aspx

Nor look at the summary quote from the review that I've put in this spoiler:

I called the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens Canon's "Most fun per dollar lens". While that lens is less expensive, I'm thinking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens may be the new holder of this title. The improvements in this lens, especially the Hybrid IS, go a long way toward increasing the fun-ness. And the results are definitely fun-inducing. This is a highly recommended lens.

Oh fuck.

I clicked it.

Oh well, I always get double salary in May and no serious outstanding debts :) Just in time for summer then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sapa

Sapa

Posted
Posted

Yeah no cropping on the last shot. Have a search of Flickr for Canon 100mm macro and you will see some amazing examples of really up-close macro stuff, hairs on the legs of spiders and all that. I totally agree with that quote about it being "most fun per dollar". I guess it just makes you take shots you wouldn't normally think of or even be able to capture properly. You start seeing inspiration in the smallest of things and of course you become a bit of a bug hunter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PopeSmokesDope

PopeSmokesDope

Posted
Posted

Quick heads up for anyone who's been waiting for stock situation on Lee filters to improve.

Looks like they're finally sorting out the backlogs, with Robert White having cleared back orders on the Big Stopper up to early Feb now.

I dunno how much use it will be for you out there... from my experience, any sunlight ends up ruining the shot, I've found that low light or overcast days where you can't see the glow of the sun work best

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gerald.d

gerald.d

Posted
Posted

I dunno how much use it will be for you out there... from my experience, any sunlight ends up ruining the shot, I've found that low light or overcast days where you can't see the glow of the sun work best

We do get days like that - honest :)

I'm very interested in experimenting with one to remove moving objects/people from the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept