Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Ma Baker, Jan 14, 2007.
I'd like to know why theyre good
- 650W modelling lamp!!! (can produce enough heat to melt cheap modifiers)
- A switch that switches between 500w, 1000w, and 1500w flash modes.
- 1/2200 flash duration in 500w mode!!!!
I may have gone a little crazy today.
All that is to be shared between a 70D and the EOS-M5 in the pic
I'm not sold on the need/want for the UV filter. I'd read some people saying you must have one for protection. As many people saying it's voodoo and a waste of money. So since I've never used one before I thought I'd grab one and have a shot. I think I'll put it on the 70-300.
I used to religiously use filters but if you have a lens hood, you're gunna need a helluva shot to get something into the lens.
No lens hoods for me here. So we'll see. I don't mind the look of it on the lens. It seems like it'll do a nice job of at least keeping to dust off the outer element.
Lens hood will not only protect you from lens flares, but also protect the front objective AND the front lip of the body of the lens itself from physical damage. I don't know about you but I'd rather scuff the cheap plastic lens hood rather than the actual lens itself. I'd say go and buy the one designed for the lens. Also, some lenses are only fully weather sealed if they have a front filter screwed on. Not sure about the particular lenses than you have but I'd say it's worth the few bucks for it too.
UV filters are a complete waste of money, the only times you'd ever consider it is if you were shooting something where there was a danger of physical objects being thrown at your camera. The whole "I dropped my lens and a UV filter saved me" is crap, you broke the glass of the UV filter and had all of these sharp pieces of glass scratching the shit out of your front element anyway. As mentioned above, a lens hood designed for the lens is your best bet at protecting against drop/impact damage. Lens makers put all of these expensive, complicated coatings and layers on lenses for a reason - because they don't need anything additional to be added.
Why do camera shops push UV filters? Because their margin on them is probably 300-400%, unlike your camera body which has a margin of probably 30-40%.
No doubt that UV filters are just memes nowadays. I personally use CPLs a lot though so I usually have a filter of some type on my lenses.
Yup. UV filter won't do much in a drop. I'm under no illusion that there's only a very small set of events where the filter will be good protection.
Mine are mostly kit lenses with some upper low end ones added in. I doubt many if any are even possible to weather seal at all.
Yeah. I'm more concerned about dropping it and the internals being messed up than dropping it on the front element!
I agree - it felt like that was the main motivation behind the upsell but I'd never run one before and some people swore by it and it wasn't tooooo much money so I thought I'd try it once.
Haha yeah. One of those collective old wive's tales.
F-me that 70-300 has a LCD distance/focus readout. Doesn't do too bad considering price/performance either.
A far cry from the 75-300 f4-5.6 iii I originally started with. I wouldn't wish that POS on anybody.
Wish I had something to post in this bought something new forum but I'm kinda finally content with my stuff.
I still find UV filters useful nowadays. It means I can shove the cam and lens face down in my bag without worrying too much about scuffing the front element, just because I'm lazy.
That's pretty much why I have one on my main lens as I don't use a hood on that (too bulky).
And you then take photos through that scuffed up UV filter?
Modern and decent UV filters are very difficult to scratch. At the most, all you need to do is clean it. I still use lens caps myself. It's only an extra couple of seconds of effort to put it on or remove it.
Modern lenses are about as difficult to scratch as UV filters, so its kind of moot. The alternative is that those using a UV filter as a lens cap are taking off the filter to shoot... which would be more effort than just using a lens cap.
I dunno, I've been doing photography as a serious hobby since around 2003-ish and am yet to damage any of my camera equipment or scratch a lens. I've also owned lenses with massive protruding front elements (e.g. Nikon 14-24mm) that you can't put filters on anyway, and no issues with any of those. I also do predominantly do landscape photography out in the elements, so there are plenty of opportunities to break stuff... in fact the only thing I've broken whilst out doing photography was my arm, which now has a titanium plate and 7 screws in it.
Yep because it does not makes a difference for my holiday snaps.
UV filter not that much scuffed up yet, but better that than the front element when I practice unsafe storage.
I only practice unsafe storage when I am on holiday. Camera comes in and out of my satchel bag lots as I don't like it hanging around my neck.
My EF-M Lenses have no UV filter. They have scuffs on their UV coating which make me wish I had a filter on them to begin with.
Haven't noticed any issues with my holiday snaps with it but they don't warrant close scrutiny. They are scuffed now so what can you do...
Ordered a Thieye T5e to mess around with (only just ordered today due to paypal problems with my Aus money), cant wait to mess around with it.
Got myself another Godox AD200. Mostly will be deployed as a second light for evening shoots, but also is a back-up in what is now a 4-light studio set-up, and I can now also now evenly light the background.
Nice man! Are you going to get the dual head adapter as well?
I have 2x AD600s so probably not. May get the 1200WS remote head for the AD600 though!
Nice, they're a really flexible unit
Took mine out and battled some sunset sun outdoors with a small softbox without issue