Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears > Gadgets, Computers & Software


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th June 2008, 13:22   #2431
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 938
Thanked: 160 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
redrage, I hope you have not slapped a UV filter to the front of the telephoto?
Why do you say that?
Torqy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 13:50   #2432
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Using UV filter ads to flare and also degrades image quality. I have seen this happening even with MC UV filters of high quality. Therefore I use UV filters only while storing lenses for protection(sometimes lens cap can fall of due to shaking etc., in bag).


Most modern lenses of medium quality don't have any flare problem in lighting conditions which redrage shot. But the image quality he is seeing is worse than what is expected from the 55-250 lens.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 13:52   #2433
BHPian
 
redrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bengalooru
Posts: 545
Thanked: 58 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
redrage, I hope you have not slapped a UV filter to the front of the telephoto?
You are right. Unfortunately it was very dusty and was about to rain. So the lens was slapped on with the uv filter.

Last edited by redrage : 9th June 2008 at 13:54.
redrage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 13:55   #2434
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrage View Post
You are right. Unfortunately it was very dusty and was about to rain. So the lens was slapped on with the uv filter. What difference would it have made if wasnt kept on?
Well I have partially answered your question. Anyways, if you hadn't put on the UV filter, your pictures would have had more contrast, and would have been more "crisp".
your shots look as if they were shot from behind a glass window.
I suspect you are not using an expensive UV filter but the cheaper variety one.
If you have to use a UV filter(I don't know why), then get a high quality UV filter. It will cost you atleast around 800 rs for a 58mm lens.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 14:22   #2435
BHPian
 
redrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bengalooru
Posts: 545
Thanked: 58 Times
Default

Let me try the shots next time withought the filter.
1) I use the filter when i shoot birds against the sunlight.
2) Dont want to expose the lens.

I use a marumi filter.
redrage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 14:39   #2436
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrage View Post
Let me try the shots next time withought the filter.
1) I use the filter when i shoot birds against the sunlight.
2) Dont want to expose the lens.

I use a marumi filter.
Marumi filter is a lousy filter, Infact all these Kenko, Marumi etc., will degrade your shots.
As for against the sunlight. Well thats when the flare problem is among the worst!
Don't worry, direct sunlight won't damage your self. However if you keep your lens pointed at the sun for long you will melt the insiders(filter or no filter).
So get rid of that useless piece of glass, and use it as an additional lens-cap during storage.
The 55-250 is an excellent lens for the price, and it can give you much better pictures than you have now.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 15:52   #2437
BHPian
 
redrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bengalooru
Posts: 545
Thanked: 58 Times
Default

Thanks tsk,

Came across this article from digital picture where i read about the ongoing debates on using or not using a uvf. He says B+W Mrc filters are the best, if you really use the filter use them in harsh weather conditions.


B+W 77mm MRC (010) UV Filter Review
redrage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 15:59   #2438
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Ok, if its raining I understand, but mild dust... Its okay,
If you want protection against falling etc., buy a hood. It costs 50rs.

Try a few shots without the marumi and you will be amazed at what your lens can do.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:07   #2439
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 938
Thanked: 160 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
Using UV filter ads to flare and also degrades image quality. I have seen this happening even with MC UV filters of high quality. Therefore I use UV filters only while storing lenses for protection(sometimes lens cap can fall of due to shaking etc., in bag).
What about polarizers?
Torqy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:08   #2440
Team-BHP Support
 
Samurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: B'lore-Manipal
Posts: 22,042
Thanked: 13,487 Times
Default

I have either B+W or Hoya Multi-coated UV filter on every one of my lenses.
Samurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:15   #2441
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torqy View Post
What about polarizers?
Polarizers rob me of 1-2 stops of light.
But I am willing to forgo that to get bluer skies and stronger contrast.
A UV filter is just a piece of glass, a polarizer actually manipulates light and gives you an effect which cannot be done in PS.
some pics which show the enhanced contrast and deeper blue of the Sky.
Name:  239013397_gFRoaL.jpg
Views: 223
Size:  165.1 KB
Name:  238803132_2sN9UL.jpg
Views: 200
Size:  76.7 KB
Name:  238800792_FG58uL.jpg
Views: 263
Size:  170.9 KB

However I would be lying if its only + points.
Sometimes in wide angle, due to changing angle of polarization, the sky looks funny
The Digital Camera Thread: Questions, discussions, etc.-239007130_jabfixl.jpg

At night I have to take it off because it leads to ugly flares.
Ditto for daytime if I am shooting against the sun.

Sometimes I have to use a tripod because the shutter speed goes low due to 2 stop loss.
AF also gets less efficient(my lens is F3.5 at wide end) with polarizer on.

So its not all good, there are disadvantages too, so you have to choose when to use it.
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:19   #2442
Team-BHP Support
 
Samurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: B'lore-Manipal
Posts: 22,042
Thanked: 13,487 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrage View Post
I have been using the 55-250 IS extensively now and if you are buying it "here" its defintely more bang for buck than the 70-300 IS as the price difference as many pointed out is more than 17K!!!!. here are some shots taken on the 55-250
The first one is a keeper, it has come really sharp, just crop and reframe it for better composition.

The rest two are soft, beyond salvage. Don't be offended, you have to be ruthless with quality control to improve your photography.
Samurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:30   #2443
BHPian
 
redrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bengalooru
Posts: 545
Thanked: 58 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai View Post
The first one is a keeper, it has come really sharp, just crop and reframe it for better composition.

The rest two are soft, beyond salvage. Don't be offended, you have to be ruthless with quality control to improve your photography.
Thank you for the tip Samurai. Pic #2 & #3 were not sharpened through PS. I casually uploaded them. Will work on my images for sure before my next post.
Pic #3 was taken in shade mode of WB in presence od dark clouds. Need to llok into minor details before shooting for sure.
redrage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 17:35   #2444
Team-BHP Support
 
Samurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: B'lore-Manipal
Posts: 22,042
Thanked: 13,487 Times
Default

If you are shooting RAW, why bother with WB, just leave it in auto. You can select the WB while processing. Somehow I feel #2, #3 won't improve much with sharpening.
Samurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th June 2008, 21:01   #2445
BHPian
 
carzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Mum Ca Mum
Posts: 75
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

I don't mean to hijack the ongoing discussion, really need some advice on what decent Telephoto lens I should get for my S3 IS. I'm an "entry level" at photography. Will be going on a short trip in a few weeks so I need a lens for taking distant wildlife photos, birds, etc. My budget is 7-8K. I checked a few stores but they said I'll need to go to Fort Area as that's the only place canon lenses are available.
carzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Digital camera v1p3r Gadgets, Computers & Software 117 3rd September 2006 13:22
Digital Camera Reviews (around Rs. 20,000/-) naveendhyani Gadgets, Computers & Software 107 10th July 2006 12:32


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 15:04.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks