Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Jun 2016 (Sunday) 10:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

i'm sure glad i used protection...,.

 
runninmann
what the heck do I know?
Avatar
8,156 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 146
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Michigan-U.S.A.
     
Jun 17, 2016 20:12 as a reply to  @ post 18042675 |  #61

I'm wo' out!


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,055 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3421
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Jun 17, 2016 20:31 |  #62

.

runninmann wrote in post #18042689 (external link)
I'm wo' out!

What does that mean?
I googled the term, but Google thought I had made a mistake, so it said, "Showing results for work' out". So, obviously, the results were not pertinent.
Any clarification you can provide would be most helpful.
Thanks!

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,017 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 2156
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 17, 2016 20:37 |  #63

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18042701 (external link)
.

What does that mean?
I googled the term, but Google thought I had made a mistake, so it said, "Showing results for work' out". So, obviouslyh, the results were not pertinent.
Any clarification you can provide would be most helpful.
Thanks!

.

i think he meant that you work out...in order to carry all that gear it's gotta be a work out...either that or some donkeys or sherpas :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
runninmann
what the heck do I know?
Avatar
8,156 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 146
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Michigan-U.S.A.
     
Jun 17, 2016 20:38 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #64

It's "ghetto" slang for "worn out." I am worn out just reading your post.


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,055 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3421
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner. (5 edits in all)
     
Jun 17, 2016 20:46 |  #65

DreDaze wrote in post #18042707 (external link)
i think he meant that you work out...in order to carry all that gear it's gotta be a work out...either that or some donkeys or sherpas :)


runninmann wrote in post #18042708 (external link)
It's "ghetto" slang for "worn out." I am worn out just reading your post.

Oh, okay - I get what you mean now.

I may have misunderstood Ed Rader's intended meaning, but it seemed as though he inferred that I probably wouldn't use/carry too much gear, because I "only photograph wildlife". I wanted to show that this would be a very illogical conclusion to draw, as many wildlife photographers have so much gear that they can't even fit all of it into their pickup trucks and SUVs.

For much of wildlife photography, you have to transport tents and shelters and blinds and ladders and kayaks and chest waders and on and on and on and on and on, all into remote areas, in order to get yourself and your gear into position to photograph the wildlife, and also in order to completely conceal yourself and your photo gear in a way that allows you to move about freely while being completely hidden from view. And you have to have all of it be adaptable so that it can be erected in thick brush, in standing water, on steep slopes, and up high in the air.

So, if someone photographs wildlife under a diverse array of conditions, then I would assume that they probably have more gear than just about any other still photographer would have for any other photographic genre.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jun 18, 2016 02:03 |  #66

Bassat wrote in post #18041537 (external link)
My hoods protect me from dog noses and kid fingerprints and flare. A filter will protect me from nothing. I don't shoot in crappy environments. I've been using SLRs since 1976. I haven't damaged a front element yet.

The only thing that proves is you haven't damaged a front element, ... yet. It proves nothing else.
It is still a fact that some Canon L glass requires a filter to be weather proof. Like it or not that's a fact Jack!

"I've been using SLRs since 1976."

I started photography in 1960, so what?


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,017 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 2156
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 18, 2016 02:25 |  #67

ebiggs wrote in post #18042898 (external link)
The only thing that proves is you haven't damaged a front element, ... yet. It proves nothing else.
It is still a fact that some Canon L glass requires a filter to be weather proof. Like it or not that's a fact Jack!

"I've been using SLRs since 1976."

I started photography in 1960, so what?

a broken filter only proves that you broke the filter...it doesn't prove that you saved the lens from any damage...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1185
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Jun 18, 2016 05:14 |  #68

ebiggs wrote in post #18042898 (external link)
It is still a fact that some Canon L glass requires a filter to be weather proof. Like it or not that's a fact JacK.

That's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. There are some tremendously pricey L lenses that aren't even threaded to take filters on the front element.

It's six of one and a half dozen of the other. It's difficult to say what damage, if any, may have been avoided to a front element simply by parading around a cracked filter. It may have prevented a scratch in the coating or it may not have. It's less likely that it prevented more traumatic damage to the glass, yet it certainly might have.

When filter glass shatters, the shards can be thrusted inward, possibly causing greater damage to the front element than what would have been experienced by a lens without the filter. What's the likelihood? Who knows.

Do lens caps and lens hoods mitigate damage? Yes. Not all damage of course. And their use is not practical under all circumstances.

What about the downside to optics by introducing an elective piece of filter glass to the mix? Sure there is a range of quality available. But the best result you can hope for is a net zero effect on your optics. In the past I've chosen at times to use protective filters, and at other times I've discarded them. When using them, there have been a few occasions where I noticed diminution in IQ (using a mid-range quality filter).

Here's three things I do know. The results are inconclusive either way, these threads are tiresome, and while I'm sure you're all quality human beings, I don't give a damn what road you choose.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jun 18, 2016 20:58 |  #69

DreDaze wrote in post #18042908 (external link)
a broken filter only proves that you broke the filter...it doesn't prove that you saved the lens from any damage...

Absolutely. Both unrelated to the value or lack thereof related to filter use. That was my point.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jun 18, 2016 21:05 |  #70

PineBomb wrote in post #18042971 (external link)
That's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes it is. It shows Canon, the lens designer, considers a filter to be a good thing.

Here's three things I do know. The results are inconclusive either way, these threads are tiresome, and while I'm sure you're all quality human beings, I don't give a damn what road you choose.

Right on!
I don't either, whatever rings your bell.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jun 19, 2016 15:09 as a reply to  @ post 18040229 |  #71

I've had 2 expensive lenses saved by using hoods. I also believe the hood would have provided protection here. I've been shooting for 47 years and never used a protective filter and I've never regretted it. But, I'll always use a hood.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cwphoto
Go ahead, make my day
Avatar
2,158 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
     
Jul 06, 2016 19:04 |  #72

ebiggs wrote in post #18043627 (external link)
Yes it is. It shows Canon, the lens designer, considers a filter to be a good thing.

...for only ~ three lenses in their current line-up of >100.

Perspective.


EOS-1D X Mark II| EOS 5D Mark IV | EOS 80D | EOS-1V HS
L: 14/2.8 II | 17/4 | 24/1.4 II | 24/3.5 II | 35/1.4 II | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 100/2.8 Macro IS | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 300/2.8 IS II | 400/2.8 IS II | 500/4 IS II | 600/4 IS II | 8-15/4 Fisheye | 11-24/4 | 16-35/2.8 III | 24-70/2.8 II | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II | 200-400/4 IS 1.4x
Sundry: 600EX II-RT | 1.4x III | 2x III | 12 II | 25 II | OC-E4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jul 06, 2016 21:50 |  #73

cwphoto wrote in post #18059810 (external link)
...for only ~ three lenses in their current line-up of >100.

Perspective.

It would not matter if it was just one. Canon approves! I don't personally own the entire Canon lens line-up but I would not be surprised if the number were not more than three. Especially when you consider how many lenses Canon has made and are now discontinued.

Perspective? Yes, Canon approves!


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cwphoto
Go ahead, make my day
Avatar
2,158 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
Post edited over 2 years ago by cwphoto. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 06, 2016 21:51 as a reply to  @ ebiggs's post |  #74

What do you mean Canon approves?

BTW - the number is approximately three: 16-35/2.8 II, 17-40/4, 50/1.2. There might be a couple more.

But even Canon is unclear on the matter - contradicting themselves at times.

In any event, it's insignificant when one considers their total lens offering.

So the perspective is this; for a couple of lenses in Canon's line-up - the addition of a filter will assist with weather sealing. For the vast majority - nothing.


EOS-1D X Mark II| EOS 5D Mark IV | EOS 80D | EOS-1V HS
L: 14/2.8 II | 17/4 | 24/1.4 II | 24/3.5 II | 35/1.4 II | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 100/2.8 Macro IS | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 300/2.8 IS II | 400/2.8 IS II | 500/4 IS II | 600/4 IS II | 8-15/4 Fisheye | 11-24/4 | 16-35/2.8 III | 24-70/2.8 II | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II | 200-400/4 IS 1.4x
Sundry: 600EX II-RT | 1.4x III | 2x III | 12 II | 25 II | OC-E4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Jul 06, 2016 21:59 |  #75

cwphoto wrote in post #18059936 (external link)
What do you mean Canon approves?

Well if that is too hard to understand, Canon advises you to use one.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,345 views & 38 likes for this thread
i'm sure glad i used protection...,.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KenJerrard
1017 guests, 314 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.