Well if a filter is a filter, why not get a $10 one from best buy?
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Digital Camera/Photography Guys.. what do you think of this canon?
- Thread starter NetViper
- Start date
Well if a filter is a filter, why not get a $10 one from best buy?
Sorry, I thought of going back and editing my post. Let me clarify. A B+W filter from Amazon vs. a B+W filter from maxsaver is the same product. The reason I would not get a lens/cam from a company from Asia is because they are considered "gray market," (and the warranty won't be covered here). However, a "the B+W filter from china is the same B+w filter from Amazon." It's not something that pricey or with complex electronics.
Cheap filters will degrade the quality of your pictures and also impact the sharpness of the pic. B+W and Heliopan are probably the two best in the market.
Last edited:
That lens is a grand!
Welcome to the world of SLR photography.
As the others have said in earlier posts, the REAL money should be spent on the lenses.
Your lenses will outlast your camera body.
+1
When it comes to DSLRs the truth is they are all pretty much good, some are better in low light, some have better auto focus, etc but the actual image quality has much more to do with the lens then the body or number of megapixals.
Buy the cannon w/ the kit lens and go out and enjoy it. If you find yourself getting into photography it is worth the $1k investment in a quality piece of glass that will last through many camera bodies, if not the kit lens will take great pictures too (despite what us snobs say
). I've used rentglass several times in the past to try out lenses before buying them or to get a really nice lens to take on vacation. It's a good way to get "L" quality glass for your vacations without the massive bill
Also, yes the multi coated UV filter you linked should work great. My $70+ price point was for a 77mm filter which would fit on the 17-55mm F2.8 lens.
Think of it like this:
Nikon DSLR = Pontiac Aztek :tongue:
Cannon DSLR + Kit Lens = Stock NSX
Cannon DSLR + high end glass = CTSC NSX
Either way you will get great pictures, but one is better to an enthusiast :biggrin:
B+W all the way but if you wanna go cheap get a Hoya UV and a CP is pretty much all I ever need
I got the camera today guys. Thanks for your help. I look forward to learning it.
Congrats! If you don't already know how to use the camera, a good start would be here> Ben's Newbie Guide :biggrin:
Thanks John. That was great.
For the UV Filter, Is this OK?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652130-REG/Hoya_A58UVC_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Haze.html#reviews
Last edited:
The reviews aren't bad for that filter. UV filters are wise investments and help protect your lens from dust, moisture and scratches
Ever since I started in photography (early 70's) I have always used a UV haze filter on all my lenses. In all those years I have never scratched a filter or damaged a lens, but I am still not willing to take a chance.
Yes, filters can cause imperfections in the image quality and it definitely changes the color.
IMO - The best use for filters are to polarize and add special effects.
I too have UV filters on all of my lenses (B+W on my L series glass).
Not only that, if you shoot RAW, you can easily achieve (and better control) the effects of such filters by shooting normally in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom.
Canon FTW! I jumped on the Canon DSLR bandwagon in 2003 (D60) and continue to be amazed by the quality of the two L series lenses (70-200 F2.8L IS, 16-35 F2.8L) I have owned since then. There's nothing like having a piece of quality glass on a crop body only to find new life on a full frame one...though their situational usefulness definitely shifts. The 16-35 was my normal lens on the crop bodies, but now I find it a bit too wide for most shooting. The 70-200 doesn't quite have the same reach, but actually becomes a better general use lens on the 5D Mark II.
What I really want to see is a 24-105 (or even a 17-105) F2.8L IS. F4 is just a tad too slow for my liking...and I definitely want IS on the lens when shooting video on the Mark II.
Not only that, if you shoot RAW, you can easily achieve (and better control) the effects of such filters by shooting normally in Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom.
Canon FTW! I jumped on the Canon DSLR bandwagon in 2003 (D60) and continue to be amazed by the quality of the two L series lenses (70-200 F2.8L IS, 16-35 F2.8L) I have owned since then. There's nothing like having a piece of quality glass on a crop body only to find new life on a full frame one...though their situational usefulness definitely shifts. The 16-35 was my normal lens on the crop bodies, but now I find it a bit too wide for most shooting. The 70-200 doesn't quite have the same reach, but actually becomes a better general use lens on the 5D Mark II.
What I really want to see is a 24-105 (or even a 17-105) F2.8L IS. F4 is just a tad too slow for my liking...and I definitely want IS on the lens when shooting video on the Mark II.
Last edited:
Try the 24-70 F/2.8 its one of the best lens they make and a favorite among many
I seriously have considered it (plus it would plug the L gap I have between the 16-35 and 70-200 nicely). My only concern is that I would like to shoot more handheld video with the camera (and I refuse to do so without image stabilization due to rolling shutter issues). 24-70 or shoulder rig first...hmmmm...
Similar threads
- Sticky
