58 replies to this topic

[Nik Habicht]

The filters labeled "extra wide" are typically for the extreme wide angles -- the filters are actually made with thinner metal, to clear the wide angle of view.....

For a regular or long lens, go with the regular (read: more robust) filters......

FWIW, I was paying in excess of $100 per UV filter for B+W more than ten years ago, in 72 and 77 mm -- so I don't think $200 is out of line for an 86mm polarizer....

Good glass deserves good filters....

[wgnoyes]

Good glass deserves good filters....

Yep. Anyone who runs without filters trying to save the imperceptibly small amount of aberation they imagine exists in their pictures from the filter (I've heard people say that before) will change their tune when they take a rock through the middle of the objective of their $1000+ lens.

[-JQ-]

Some of Canon's L lenses actually suggest a filter to complete the weather sealing, too.

I also gagged with my first quality filter - but well worth it...now I try to buy 77mm diam. lenses just to save buying more

[XRe]

I've had good luck w/ Hoya Digitals, FWIW... And, yeah, I always run some kind of UV filter on my lenses to protect the front element. Use multi-coated filters, and you have no issues... I've been doing like Jay - all the Canon L zooms (except the 16-35 II) are 77mm front thread, so my single cir-pol goes across all my primary lenses easily. Actually, all the L series primes are (or used to be) 72mm front thread, too (or, at least, most of them were).

Given that I'm strongly considering a $350-ish Singh-Ray variable ND (for outdoor strobe work), a couple hundy on a cir-pol doesn't phase me a whole lot anymore....

[D.Hayden]

Thanks Dave.. looks like in the 86mm - they (Hoya) don't offer the Multi-Coated filter

For my other lenses from my film SLRs.. never had anything this big.. and I bought all those 20+ years ago



Just saw the Heliopan - $384 at B+H

Edited by D.Hayden, 01 December 2011 - 10:10 AM.

[-JQ-]

Xre, let us know how that variable ND works out..I've been choking on those for a while and the singles are adding up

[XRe]

Xre, let us know how that variable ND works out..I've been choking on those for a while and the singles are adding up

I will - but, luckily, it's a "buy once, cry once" kind of thing, so....

[Nik Habicht]

Good glass deserves good filters....

Yep. Anyone who runs without filters trying to save the imperceptibly small amount of aberation they imagine exists in their pictures from the filter (I've heard people say that before) will change their tune when they take a rock through the middle of the objective of their $1000+ lens.

Realistically, filters have saved front elements more from rub marks and scratches in my experience.....

Anything resembling a "rock through the middle of the filter" always resulted in an expensive lens repair, in my experience....

[wgnoyes]

Rub marks and scratches on a $1000+ lens are a big deal too, especially if a filter could have avoided it all.

[Nik Habicht]

Rub marks and scratches on a $1000+ lens are a big deal too, especially if a filter could have avoided it all.

Yes and no. Rub marks and scratches on a rear element can be disastrous. On a front element -- you might not notice in /be able to see any difference in the bulk of pictures taken -- though given the $1,000+ qualifier, it probably comes down to perspective.....

For pros, $1,000 is still in pretty reasonable territory; for amateurs, not so much....

[XRe]

For pros, $1,000 is still in pretty reasonable territory; for amateurs, not so much....

It definitely affects the resale value of the lens, though maybe less than the wear the lens might've taken on the outside of the barrel, etc... I guess it depends on the use of the lens Makes less of a difference on a telephoto lens than it does a wide angle, of course.

With all the pro level zooms getting toward $2K, these days, a $1K lens isn't that big of a deal anymore

[D.Hayden]

Monopods... any suggestions there?

Or just in general, features I should look for?

[norbs007]

Monopods... any suggestions there?

Or just in general, features I should look for?

I use this Gitzo 2541 with this RRS, which requires this Lens Plate for your 200-500mm. Not sure how heavy and big your lens that it may require the thicker monopod.

Oh, you can borrow mine... not using it at the moment; but you'll need the lens plate.

Edited by norbs007, 02 December 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[Nik Habicht]

Monopods... any suggestions there?

Or just in general, features I should look for?

Gitzo Carbon Fiber, as big as you can afford.......

You'll cry, but only once, unless you lose it.....

[-JQ-]

Heres a pretty nice one...not sure if large enough.

http://www.fredmiran...m/topic/1062241

[D.Hayden]

Wow.. ok - I had no idea... thanks guys.

[D.Hayden]

Oh, you can borrow mine... not using it at the moment; but you'll need the lens plate.

If I still lived out there.. I would definetly check it out.. just to see your setup. Thanks man!

[Nik Habicht]

Heres a pretty nice one...not sure if large enough.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1062241

I think I had a 300/2.8 on that, with Converters and EOS-1D bodies.....

I think that model number matches....

[Patrick Sweeney]

When it comes to monopods, the first thing I look for is height. At 6'4", most of them make me crouch to use them.

If it can't get the eyepiece up high enough, it isn't much use.

A 200-500 Tamron? Nice, but I've gotten the "L" disease, and that means no more sub-$1K lenses.

[BigDave]

A 200-500 Tamron? Nice, but I've gotten the "L" disease, and that means no more sub-$1K lenses.

Same boat. I just sold a 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron and immediately went down to Roberts and bought a used 17-40 f/4 L. I've got L glass now from 17 through 200 mm. The next step is to be f/2.8 through that whole range.

As I type this, I have to correct myself. My next purchase will likely be a Canon 85 f/1.8 for portraits. I've been reading Zack Arias' blog quite a bit lately and he highly praises this lens. Besides, the L version is just ridiculous at >$2k

If you're interested in nature photography, check out www.naturescapes.net . Awesome resource and they provide great feedback on your images. The classifieds also are top notch. I pickup up my 1D MkII N from there and it has been awesome. Lots of long glass for sale there, too.

Edited by BigDave, 08 December 2011 - 09:52 AM.

[Nik Habicht]

A 200-500 Tamron? Nice, but I've gotten the "L" disease, and that means no more sub-$1K lenses.

Same boat. I just sold a 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron and immediately went down to Roberts and bought a used 17-40 f/4 L. I've got L glass now from 17 through 200 mm. The next step is to be f/2.8 through that whole range.

As I type this, I have to correct myself. My next purchase will likely be a Canon 85 f/1.8 for portraits. I've been reading Zack Arias' blog quite a bit lately and he highly praises this lens. Besides, the L version is just ridiculous at >$2k

If you're interested in nature photography, check out www.naturescapes.net . Awesome resource and they provide great feedback on your images. The classifieds also are top notch. I pickup up my 1D MkII N from there and it has been awesome. Lots of long glass for sale there, too.

There are some gems in the lineup that aren't L, and 85/1.8 is one of them.....

I've shot with that lens and both versions of the 85/1.2L. Optically the L lenses are gorgeous, and 1.2 is nice, though very tricky to focus, if actually shooting at 1.2.....

On the other hand, autofocus only (really) works on the 1.8 lens. AF speed on the other two could be best measured with a sundial or one of those hourglasses with sand....

[D.Hayden]

When it comes to monopods, the first thing I look for is height. At 6'4", most of them make me crouch to use them.

If it can't get the eyepiece up high enough, it isn't much use.

A 200-500 Tamron? Nice, but I've gotten the "L" disease, and that means no more sub-$1K lenses.

Patrick.. did you find a nice decent height monopod, not made for the vertically impaired?

All I see: are mostly 60-62 inches.

My local shop doesn't have Gitzo, they're all Manfrotto. Which seem ok.. I do prefer the flip locks vs screw leg locks (easier to use in the cold), but the quality doesn't seem to be there.

[XRe]

There are some gems in the lineup that aren't L, and 85/1.8 is one of them.....

I've shot with that lens and both versions of the 85/1.2L. Optically the L lenses are gorgeous, and 1.2 is nice, though very tricky to focus, if actually shooting at 1.2.....

I've shot w/ an 85/1.2 II - I agree that it's gorgeous when used for it's intended purpose (wide-ish open portrait lens). It's wicked sharp in the center, but it falls off pretty quickly, and it has some barrel distortion to it (not a lot - nothing you'd notice in a portrait, but you can see it in photos w/ straight lines).

Never shot w/ the 85/1.8, but it's the one I'd buy if I wanted a general purpose lens...

On the other hand, autofocus only (really) works on the 1.8 lens. AF speed on the other two could be best measured with a sundial or one of those hourglasses with sand....

The 85/1.2 II that I shot with had reasonable AF ability, but I wouldn't call it quick (the 17-40/4 that Dave has is faster). It wasn't sundial slow, either, though - the older version apparently was pretty appalling - still, I'd rather it be faster for a lens that I spent that much on... It might have something to do with speed of AF on the camera itself, as well - the 1DMkIII I shoot with is fairly snappy in that regard...

[-JQ-]

speaking of 85. I just picked up - in transit - an 85 1.8 in a package deal today. 1D MKII N/85 1.8

I was shopping for a backup and found a 1d MKII N with the 85. The last 1.8 I had was quick to focus but I've never had the pleasure of the 1.2 85. I did handle one once and is huge and heavy. I'll try this one out and might keep it in exchange for 50mm in my line up...it just doesn't fit my style.

I love my 5D but it isn't as weather sealed and it looks like I'll be shooting cold weather sports this winter...

Edited by -JQ-, 08 December 2011 - 06:51 PM.

[norbs007]

Patrick.. did you find a nice decent height monopod, not made for the vertically impaired?

All I see: are mostly 60-62 inches.

My local shop doesn't have Gitzo, they're all Manfrotto. Which seem ok.. I do prefer the flip locks vs screw leg locks (easier to use in the cold), but the quality doesn't seem to be there.

Dave, checkout Really Right Stuff they make good tripods and monopods too.