DSLR users, question about lens filters

**Shaun_300** · 01-17-2009, 10:27 AM

Do any of you guys use the filters for your lenses? Ever since I got this camera I've been trying to get the best quality pics my camera is capable of, just wondering if these will help my pictures even more.

Just got a 75-300mm lens off ebay and saw the filters for sale there. The comparison pics in the ad sure look to improve picture quality. Just wondering if any of you guys use them or not, and if they're worth it..

These are the ones I was looking at
http://cgi.ebay.ca/55mm-UV-PL-FD-Mac...3A1|240%3A1318

**Tominator** · 01-17-2009, 11:01 AM

Best, all-around filter to get would be a polarizer Shaun. They make all the difference in the world, especially when taking pics of the sky and where water is involved.

Another good one would be a variety of UV filters.

I'm not real sure about digital balancing, but back in the day of 35mm film, I used to use 81's and 82's to balance out certain situations with yellow and blue. 81's will "cool" off a picture, (produce a blue cast) and 82's will warm up a picture by blocking blues.

Graduated blue, gray and reds are fun to mess with too.

**SuperMn106** · 01-18-2009, 06:30 PM

Shaun, I am glad you asked this question.

I was currently wondering the same thing.

The new lens that you bought, How does that work? Is it a better zoom? How much does it help it? I think I might go in the direction of what you are going also.

What kind of camera do you have?

**Shaun_300** · 01-18-2009, 08:52 PM

Mike, I have a Sony a200 DSLR camera. The lens that comes with the camera is a 18-70mm, so the zoom isn't the best. The 75-300mm will have a lot more zoom. I don't have the lens yet but when I get it I'll do some pics with both lenses to show you the comparison.

I found this on Ebay earlier, it's a pretty good package deal! It's the same camera I have with both the 18-70mm and 75-300mm lenses, along with some other goodies.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/SONY-ALPHA-A200-D...3A1|240%3A1318

**Buckslayer** · 01-19-2009, 02:53 PM

Shaun, you'll like the 70-300 flexibility for zoom. I have plans to get a similar lens for my k200d. I had a polarized filter for my old super zoom digital (upgraded to a dslr since). But the polarized filter as Tominator says will make your contrast a little sharper and seems to produce a more saturated color which I prefer, more appealing to the eye. Enjoy the new cam!

**Mach1** · 01-19-2009, 09:08 PM

We recently picked up a Canon Digital Rebel XS 10.1 mp DSLR with 18-55mm lens and a 75-300mm telephoto lens at Best Buy in a combo. I too was wondering about filters because I've heard from some guys that take a ton of pictures that I should get one.

**ruttinbuc** · 01-21-2009, 07:43 PM

If anything you should get at least a UV filter to protect the glass of the lens. All of the other filters are cool to test your creativity. However, there are software programs that can greatly enhance your digital photography. This is what the pros use today.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

**LifeNRA** · 01-21-2009, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by ruttinbuc

If anything you should get at least a UV filter to protect the glass of the lens. All of the other filters are cool to test your creativity.

Definitely use a UV filter on all your DSLR lens. It will mainly keep the Lens protected and help balance out the color correctly. Polarizers are fun as long as your light source is bright enough, circular polarizers are better, JHMO!

This may help,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogr...nd_ultraviolet

**Shaun_300** · 01-21-2009, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by LifeNRA

Definitely use a UV filter on all your DSLR lens. It will mainly keep the Lens protected and help balance out the color correctly. Polarizers are fun as long as your light source is bright enough, circular polarizers are better, JHMO!

This may help,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogr...nd_ultraviolet

Thanks for the link John! I'll definitely be getting some filters.

**billkay** · 01-22-2009, 09:15 AM

The way I figure it, I spend a ton of money on lenses for their optical quality. I do not want to put another $20 piece of glass in front of it. I think it would take away all the benefits of buying the good glass. Yes, they will protect your lens from scratches and stuff, but I'd rather take that chance than use a cheap filter in front of my lens. Some filters will correct for minor color shifts and such, however that can also easily be accomplished in Photoshop later. I do own 1 filter, a polarizer. In the 2 years I've had it, I think I have used it 1 time. Just my thoughts. As far as polarizers go, if you have an auto focus camera, you will need the circular polarizer rather than the linear type. Somehow the linear type negatively affects the camera's ability to focus properly.

**LifeNRA** · 01-22-2009, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by billkay

The way I figure it, I spend a ton of money on lenses for their optical quality. I do not want to put another $20 piece of glass in front of it. I think it would take away all the benefits of buying the good glass. Yes, they will protect your lens from scratches and stuff, I'd rather take that chance than use a cheap filter in front of my lens.

I agree, but we are not professional photographers. Who most of them get their equipment given to them, or make tons of money which is no object to them. I did say most of them!

I look at it as a cheap way of keeping that good glass protected. If the UV filter gets scratched, it will be easier and cheaper to replace the filter, than the lens. If I paid a lot of cash for lens that I will be using here and there, and it gets scratched. I would be crazy mad!

**billkay** · 01-23-2009, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by LifeNRA

Who most of them get their equipment given to them, or make tons of money which is no object to them.

Wow. I'd like to meet one of them that gets their gear for free. It has nothing to do with that. Most of us are competing daily to have are photos in on place or another. Any advantage we can get, in the case of filters, it's sharpness, I will take. And as far as making tons of money? Man it just ain't so. Look at it this way. One of my lenses, an 80-200mm f2.8 costs about $1700. The cost for me to replace that front element is about $250. A good filter for it will cost around $125. I'd rather take the chance of trying to be careful not to get scratches than use a filter. By the way, most scratches you get on the front element of your lens will come from improper cleaning of it rather than a branch or something else. Another thing is that the rear element is much more critical in terms of losing sharpness from scratches. And yes, I paid full price for that lens, out of my pocket, along with a lot of other stuff.

**Tominator** · 01-23-2009, 08:57 PM

I can remember when I was really into 35mm when I was in the service, I drooled over Nikon glass. Little f stops and long lenses can run into the thousands of dollars. I'd have to agree with Bill, if you're not a professional, filters are fun to fiddle with, but that's about it. The more glass you put between you and the film, the poorer the quality photo. If you just putz around as a hobby, get a polarizer.

**LifeNRA** · 01-24-2009, 02:22 AM

Wow. I'd like to meet one of them that gets their gear for free.

I not talking about the free-lance photographer. I know you guys buy your own equipment. I am saying the guys that work in sports that come to mind. Anywhere that their is a possibility of damage. Football and racing to name a few. As far as the money thing. When I got married, my jaw hit the floor when shopping around for a wedding photographer!

Guy I went to school with wanted about $4000! He is still in business today yet!

Then there are guys like me who just cant drop $1700 for a lens, but ohhhhhhh how I would like too!!!

For your kind of work I see your point. But for the average joe like me and many others, its just cheap insurance. BTW, I didn't mean to sound like I was single-ling you out!

By the way, most scratches you get on the front element of your lens will come from improper cleaning of it rather than a branch or something else.

I learned that the hard way! About $400 the hard way!

I can remember when I was really into 35mm when I was in the service, I drooled over Nikon glass. Little f stops and long lenses can run into the thousands of dollars.

Same here! I always wanted just one of them Len's that you can see on the sidelines of football games! The real long ones! Then you would see the photographer getting smashed from one of the players!

**billkay** · 01-24-2009, 03:53 PM

The first pro football game I shot was a disaster. It was a Chgo Bears game. Got to the game late, with my 400mm 2.8, found a spot on the sidelines, knelt down and began loading film into 3 bodies, looked up and got run over by about 6 players. Moral, Never, never take your eyes off the field and ball. There were parts of me and all my gear scattered for about 20 yards. I finally got most of the bleeding stopped by half time. I think the total repair bill for the grear was around $800. When I worked at the paper the gear was provided. It was called pool gear. Believe me, you didn't want to be the guy that damaged it. We all also used some of our personal gear that wasn't normally provided by the paper.