[Torqy]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

redrage, I hope you have not slapped a UV filter to the front of the telephoto?

Why do you say that?

[tsk1979]

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.

[redrage]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

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.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by redrage

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.

[redrage]

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.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by redrage

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.

[redrage]

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

[tsk1979]

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.

[Torqy]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

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?

[Samurai]

I have either B+W or Hoya Multi-coated UV filter on every one of my lenses.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Torqy

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.




However I would be lying if its only + points.
Sometimes in wide angle, due to changing angle of polarization, the sky looks funny


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.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by redrage

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.

[redrage]

Originally Posted by Samurai

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.

[Samurai]

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.

[carzy]

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.