Filter Recommendations?

[gregnash]

Not sure if this is the right forum but figured a good place to start. I recently picked up a Tokina 19-35mm lens off craigslist for some wide angle/landscape/car show shooting and I am wondering what is the best filter for this lens. It is 77mm and I am only looking to spend $20-$30 for the filter (AT MOST) but want something that would be a good, multi-purpose filter.

Any recommendations? Note: car show stuff is for Hot August Nights in Reno,NV which will involve some low light shooting. I do not have an external flash on my 20D YET and dont know if I will have one by then, not sure if this info will make a difference or not.

[ed rader]

Not sure if this is the right forum but figured a good place to start. I recently picked up a Tokina 19-35mm lens off craigslist for some wide angle/landscape/car show shooting and I am wondering what is the best filter for this lens. It is 77mm and I am only looking to spend $20-$30 for the filter (AT MOST) but want something that would be a good, multi-purpose filter.

Any recommendations? Note: car show stuff is for Hot August Nights in Reno,NV which will involve some low light shooting. I do not have an external flash on my 20D YET and dont know if I will have one by then, not sure if this info will make a difference or not.


you're not going to get a decent filter for that price. a decent circular polarizer will cost you nearly $100 and a decent UV protective filter will cost you about half that (multi-coated for both).

for the car show you really don't need any filters .... the UV would be for protection only.

BTW, i owned the tokina "plastic fantastic" several years ago and it was a decent lens :D.

ed rader

[Jon]

I don't think you'll find a decent filter for that price, but look at the Protective Filter FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177) on what to look for in a filter. Many of us use a UV or other clear filter as protection against stray flying bits of this and that; even a good 77 mm UV will run you closer to $60 than $30. As for actually affecting the photos you take, the most generally useful one would be a circular polarizer, and you're looking at over $100 for a quality one of those in the 77 mm size. If you're shooting highly-polished cars, the CP will help control reflections off the paint and glass, but will cost you a couple of stops of light - count on needing a tripod with it if it's not really bright where you are shooting.

[gregnash]

Ok thanks for the info Ed and Jon. So really at this point it looks like I will be using it more for protection than anything else. I have to say that I have had this lens for only a couple months (picked it up off local craigslist for about $80) and the few pictures I have taken with it have GREAT colors. I knew that a CP filter was going to be out of my price range and I might invest in one when I move to a FF body but right now cannot justify the price seeing as I still dont have an external flash, good tripod/monopod, or remote trigger. This was basically picked up to be used for a web redesign project that I was doing for my work and then as a landscape lens as my wife and I frequent Carmel, CA and Lake Tahoe. Still have not gotten a chance to take the lens to either but we have vacations planned to both this month.

Looking on Amazon.com would any of these be worth it to pick up?
- Tiffen 77mm UV Protection Filter (http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-77mm-UV-Protection-Filter/dp/B00004ZCJM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-1)
- Tiffen 77mm Circular Polarizer (http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-77CP-77mm-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B00004ZCI3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-2)
- Canon UV Haze (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-8-7701-77mm-UV-Haze/dp/B00021OCRO/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-6)
- Zeikos UV Multi-coated (http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-UV77-77mm-Multi-Coated-Filter/dp/B001LMQM4O/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655817&sr=8-8)

[SkipD]

Looking on Amazon.com would any of these be worth it to pick up?
- Tiffen 77mm UV Protection Filter (http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-77mm-UV-Protection-Filter/dp/B00004ZCJM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-1)
- Tiffen 77mm Circular Polarizer (http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-77CP-77mm-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B00004ZCI3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-2)
- Canon UV Haze (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-8-7701-77mm-UV-Haze/dp/B00021OCRO/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655435&sr=8-6)
- Zeikos UV Multi-coated (http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-UV77-77mm-Multi-Coated-Filter/dp/B001LMQM4O/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1244655817&sr=8-8)Absolutely not. Those choices are all a waste of money in my opinion.

IF you are going to use a filter on a lens, it should be the best quality multicoated filter available. Otherwise, you are just asking for image degradation.

[Jon]

None of them would. Tiffen and Canon filters are very poor quality; Zeikos is a "never heard of them" but at less than $10, I wouldn't expect any kind of quality at all. You might as well use a sheet of window glass as any of those. Really, there are three reliable brands - Heliopan, Hoya and B+W. And only the top of their lines aren't going to adversely affect your images, especially in marginal conditions.

[cpforyou]

For 77mm, I would spend the money for it and don't worry about it.

This is why... if you eventually upgrade, 77mm is a very common size, and you can use it for your more expensive equipment later.

I personally do not have any lens with a 77mm filter size, but almost all my filters are 77mm and mounted with step-up rings based on the fact that when I upgrade, I will use them.

[fstop72]

I have a new 86mm piece of glass 50-500 Sigma I'm looking for a CPL and may be a ND #? which I don't know if I need one or what number, I know nothing about filter or brands. I will be shooting mainly nature in the Wetlands in Huntington Beach Ca.

From minim experience with smaller lens sizes. I all ready think Toya and Victar are not filters I want to continue to uses.

Thanks in Advance for any Help

[ddong]

Never buy HOYA, it'll drive you nuts when you clean it.

[ajosteve]

Never buy HOYA, it'll drive you nuts when you clean it.
I agree with this statement.....I could never get it clean, so I took all my filters off. Why put a piece cheap glass over a $1,000-$1,700 lens for protection? Lens hoods will keep you from bumping it on something. I shoot out in the woods and brush, and have never scratched a lens. Also, I think uv filters soften the shots some.:cry:

[Wilt]

Never buy HOYA, it'll drive you nuts when you clean it.


I'll be a dissenting opinion on this one!

If you clean with a fluid, any streaking can be dealt with by simply huffing with your breath and wiping off. I normally will not bother with a cleaning fluid, but use that only in rare circumstance when huffing alone and wiping a filter is insufficient for cleaning. And the new Hoya HD is supposed to be even easier to deal with streaking.

[Naturalist]

I know it has been a while since the OP posted, but I wanted to comment on this statement for others that search and follow later on...

I am only looking to spend $20-$30 for the filter (AT MOST)

THIS IS, PERHAPS, THE SINGLE LARGEST ERROR THAT MOST NEW SHOOTERS MAKE!

Never skimp on the filter. Photography is about image quality and putting a cheap piece of glass in from of your lens is the best way to lose interest in the craft.

[Wilt]

THIS IS, PERHAPS, THE SINGLE LARGEST ERROR THAT MOST NEW SHOOTERS MAKE!
.


...as well as the logic, "It does not make sense to put an expensive filter on a cheap lens". If anything, it is MORE important to put a good filter on a cheap lens.

Imagine a good lens holds 98% of the optical quality of the mythical 'perfect lens'. Imagine a cheap lens gets 92% of the quality of the mythical 'perfect lens'...only 6.5% less performance than the ideal lens (which is understating how bad a cheap lens can be!)

Putting a good filter on good lens means that you get (0.996 * 0.98 ) from this combination, while a cheap filter on cheap lens gets (0.92 * 0.93). Which would you rather have...97.6% (the good combo) or 85.5% (the cheap combo)?!

[Naturalist]

Agreed!

[ddong]

I'll be a dissenting opinion on this one!

... ... And the new Hoya HD is supposed to be even easier to deal with streaking.

This is the reason why I got a new designed Hoya PRO1 Digital DMC Filter, you know what, it still sucks for cleaning ! trust me

[hollis_f]

...as well as the logic, "It does not make sense to put an expensive filter on a cheap lens". If anything, it is MORE important to put a good filter on a cheap lens.

Imagine a good lens holds 98% of the optical quality of the mythical 'perfect lens'. Imagine a cheap lens gets 92% of the quality of the mythical 'perfect lens'...only 6.5% less performance than the ideal lens (which is understating how bad a cheap lens can be!)

Putting a good filter on good lens means that you get (0.996 * 0.98 ) from this combination, while a cheap filter on cheap lens gets (0.92 * 0.93). Which would you rather have...97.6% (the good combo) or 85.5% (the cheap combo)?!

I'd rather go for the cheapest, highest quality option. No filter, no cost, no degradation in IQ, no brainer.

[SkipD]

I'd rather go for the cheapest, highest quality option. No filter, no cost, no degradation in IQ, no brainer.I agree, as long as a lens hood is in the purchase.

[Jon]

This is the reason why I got a new designed Hoya PRO1 Digital DMC Filter, you know what, it still sucks for cleaning ! trust me

DMC isn't the same as the real newest Hoya, the HD, which even Hoya bills as easier to clean.

[cohenfive]

agree with the above--it's totally worth it to get a good filter for good glass, sort of defeats the purpose otherwise.