A bit of protection

mxfun

mxfun

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,242
Name
Sean Logie
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking a filter to go on the front of 70-200 ,guess there's no point in putting a cheap fleabay jobby on ,any recommendations .It's 77mm so could be costly ,heh .. so was the lens though ...:)
 
A Hoya Pro1D UV seems to be the popular choice.

Bob
 
There are plenty of arguments about the benefits or not of filters as protection.I would get a circular polariser which you could leave on the lens and remove as necessary.Dont forget that hood gives massive protection.
Pete.
 
TheWombat said:
There are plenty of arguments about the benefits or not of filters as protection.I would get a circular polariser which you could leave on the lens and remove as necessary.Dont forget that hood gives massive protection.
Pete.
Click to expand...

Surely c/p would interfere with the af ?


But i'm still listening ,one says yeh the other recommends ,anyone else have any other views ?
 
mxfun said:
...one says yeh the other recommends ,anyone else have any other views ?
Click to expand...

I was only quoting the popular choice....personally, I don't use anything.

Bob
 
mxfun said:
Surely c/p would interfere with the af ?


But i'm still listening ,one says yeh the other recommends ,anyone else have any other views ?
Click to expand...

Just my choice.I would shoot without by preference and use C/P if it suited.
Pete.
 
Sean, you NEED a UV of some kind. Personally I don't buy the expensive ones, I'll let you see some of the old ones if you want to let you know why.
 
dod said:
Sean, you NEED a UV of some kind......
Click to expand...

And the reasoning is?

I've seen kit lenses and nifties "protected" by filters but yet to see a £5000 500/4 or 600/4 with anything slapped on the end.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
And the reasoning is?

I've seen kit lenses and nifties "protected" by filters but yet to see a £5000 500/4 or 600/4 with anything slapped on the end.

Bob
Click to expand...

motocross

edit: of course a skylight would do just as well :)
 
Canon Bob said:
Ah....I see. My blue tits have yet to perfect the art of high velocity horizontal crapping :)
Click to expand...

:lol:

Sorry, I should have explained why originally :)
 
Just make sure you use a lens hood and quickly point the lens away when they go past.

Works quite well (and I do a lot of MX!)

Filters are blurgh!
 
Canon Bob said:
I was only quoting the popular choice....personally, I don't use anything.

Bob
Click to expand...

For over 30 years I have always had a filter on my lenses until one day last summer. I went out without a filter - I have no idea why. On that day, the only time I've ever done it in all these years, I managed to whack the end of the lens on the corner of a wall. To make matters worse, I did it as I was trying to get the lens hood out of my pocket. So no lens hood or filter. I have never damaged a lens before in my life.

The result is a small dent in the rim of the lens and a 'bright spot' on the glass itself. Although it still seems to work OK and there are no visible problems with the images.

I tried to straighten it but to no avail. Now I can't get a filter on the lens at all.

Twas indeed a b****r.
 
I appreciate that there's a risk and it's one I'm prepared to take.....survived intact so far...touch wood (head).


It always amuses me when people get passionate about lens protection but take all sorts of risks with their eyes....hands up all those people who religiously use filters but will happily drill a wall or use a grinder without goggles.

Bob
 
Yup, if you are worried about a bit of stone going in the end of your lens at MX, you really should be wearing safety eyewear too. You can buy a new lens, you can't buy a new eye nearly so easily...
 
I have glasses made of Hoya pro UV filters ;)

I personally don't use any, either. Lens hoods for me :)

But, as Canon bob said, NONE of my subjects have perfected the art of high velocity horizontal material flinging.
 
I am basically with Bob on this, only use a filter when necessary. If there is a good chance something will hit the front element or it will get dust covered, get a decent UV or similar on there - decent, yes, they are expensive, but what is the point of paying hundreds and even thousands of pounds for good quality glass and engineering, then sticking a £15 bit of glass in front of all? Otherwise, I do without unless its for a specific use, such as a polariser for its intended purpose.
 
I agree with you about worrying about your gear to the point that you don't use it, but I do use a UV filter on my L series lenses. For the cost it seems daft not to.

Besides....

as you say, if you are worried about the lens getting hit you should have goggles on. But don't forget, your average L series lens can't blink!
 
Yv said:
I am basically with Bob on this, only use a filter when necessary. If there is a good chance something will hit the front element or it will get dust covered, get a decent UV or similar on there - decent, yes, they are expensive, but what is the point of paying hundreds and even thousands of pounds for good quality glass and engineering, then sticking a £15 bit of glass in front of all? Otherwise, I do without unless its for a specific use, such as a polariser for its intended purpose.
Click to expand...


I suppose it depends on what you are photographing, but my camera gets a bit wet and dirty quite often and I can't really see why you wouldn't use a filter. They cost about £40.00 for a good one (someone will tell me that's not a good one now) and it seems daft not to have one on a grands worth of lens. Even if its only to keep dust off the front element.
 
the lens hood on my 70-200 is soo deep that i struggle with the bloody lens cap! I only have a filter on the 10-22mm as the barrell/zoom design looks like it could introduce dust into the mirro/sensor chamber.
 
Badger UK said:
as you say, if you are worried about the lens getting hit you should have goggles on. But don't forget, your average L series lens can't blink!
Click to expand...

Yeah but blinking makes no odds when its a 4" diameter piece of flint...
 
33L said:
the lens hood on my 70-200 is soo deep that i struggle with the bloody lens cap! I only have a filter on the 10-22mm as the barrell/zoom design looks like it could introduce dust into the mirro/sensor chamber.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean about the lens hood on the 70-200 f2.8L. I usually ask ET to get it off for me. His fingers has specifically developed for the job.
 
Canon Bob said:
I appreciate that there's a risk and it's one I'm prepared to take.....survived intact so far...touch wood (head).


It always amuses me when people get passionate about lens protection but take all sorts of risks with their eyes....hands up all those people who religiously use filters but will happily drill a wall or use a grinder without goggles.

Bob
Click to expand...

Are you talking DIY?!!! Go and wash your mouth out!!
 
TheWombat said:
Just my choice.I would shoot without by preference and use C/P if it suited.
Pete.
Click to expand...

I use a c/p when the light is right ,really brings out the colors of the Mx gear the riders have on ,and the bikes of course :thumbs:
 
mxfun said:
:clap::clap: :lol:

I love DIY ,i really like to take my time... 2 1/2 yrs on the front doorstep (including T breaks ):D
Click to expand...

My kind of DIY! :beer::beer:
 
mxfun said:
:clap::clap: :lol:

I love DIY ,i really like to take my time... 2 1/2 yrs on the front doorstep (including T breaks ):D
Click to expand...

An amateur....21 years ago, I started a 5 year plan to renovate and extend the house...only 4 years left before it's finished :woot:

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top