Filters for EF 28-135mm

[jennifer_harman1]

<p>Greetings... I just got the EF 28-135mm AF wide angle lens that currently comes with the Canon 50D. I wish to purchase two 72mm Tiffen filters, one a UV and the other a polarizer, and have noticed that two types of filters are offered. One does not indicate it is for a wide angle lens, the other states it is for wide angle. I called a well know online photography store and they said I did not need to buy wide anlge filters. Since I'm fairly new to photography, would appreciate some advise as I am rather confused about the wide angle aspect and the correct filter size. (-; Thanks</p>

[craigd]

<p>Filters for extreme wide-angle lenses are usually made with thinner frames to reduce the risk of vignetting. This isn't generally a problem at 28mm, so I don't think you need to get wide-angle filters.</p>

<p>My experience with Tiffen filters has left me disinclined to use them. I find Hoya HMC filters are much better (less risk of reflections, mostly). B+W F-Pro filters are extremely nice but not cheap.</p>

[karl_lehmann]

<p>You don't need the wide angle filters for the 28-135mm, especially not with the 50D. Even on a full frame camera (like the 5D) it wouldn't matter unless you stacked the filters, which you shouldn't do anyway. Your lens caps will stay on the regular filters better.</p>

<p>Don't worry, the Tiffen UV and polarizing filters are fine. A multicoated filter (like Hoya HMC) is slightly better in some conditions (with the sun in the frame, for example) but much more expensive. In the real world, with a zoom lens, you will probably never see any difference.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>On the 50D you add a crop sensor factor of 1.6 so your 28mm is effectively a 44.8mm (equivalent to 35mm or Full Frame) so it isn't even a wide angle at all more a standard lens wide open. So don't concern yourself about the filters. BTW good reading here before you buy.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html</a></p>

<p>Im not repeating just that Karl beat me to it. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[craigd]

<p>The real world is where I found out that cheap filters don't work well. The sun being in the frame is only one case, and in that situation you're likely to get some reflections regardless of what filters you use, or even if you have no filter at all. What's actually much worse is low-light situations with bright points of light, such as indoors with light fixtures, or outdoor night shooting with street lights. In such situations, cheap, non-multi-coated filters usually generate lots of nasty reflections.</p>

<p>I also wonder why you say "with a zoom lens", as if zoom lenses were less prone to reflections than primes -- which is not at all the case in my experience. The more air-glass interfaces you have in a lens, the more opportunities for reflections there are, and zoom lenses typically have more lens groups, therefore more air-glass interfaces.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Gary, that's an interesting page on UV filter tests. I hadn't seen it before.</p>

<p>"The Tiffen filter was particularly unfortunate in our testing. It costs almost as much as the winner – the Hoya HMC – and it performs a bit worse than a clean piece of regular window glass!"</p>

<p>A harsh assessment, but probably not unfair.</p>

[karl_lehmann]

<p>'I also wonder why you say "with a zoom lens"...' - Craig Dickson</p>

<p>Because a zoom lens such as the EF 28-135 contains many more internal surfaces than a prime it is far more prone to ghosting and flare. Thus it is likely to swamp the effects of reflections from the inner surface of a filter. If you've already got a row of 9 ghost images, 1 more doesn't make much difference. The OP did not ask for technical details so I didn't provide them.</p>

<p>Obviously if you are shooting into bright light sources and you don't want flare and ghosting you should use a prime lens with a hood and no filters, and if you MUST use a filter it should be multicoated. You would want to remove any UV filter whether it's multicoated or not. But this has nothing to do with the poster's question. If you have unrelated filter questions maybe you should start a new thread, or search the archives.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Karl, you were doing fine until that last sentence, which was unnecessarily obnoxious. Since the OP mentioned Tiffen, I think it is on-topic to comment on that choice. The question about wide-angle filters has been answered, anyway.</p>

<p>Ignoring that, though, I don't really agree with you, because the "real world" to which you referred in your first comment is not strictly divided between situations in which a cheap filter will do as well as any, and worst-case scenarios in which it's best to have no filter at all. The real world has a spectrum of situations, and in between the extremes there are many cases where a cheap filter will cause problems but a better filter won't -- even with zoom lenses, where, according to you, another pair of air-glass interfaces shouldn't matter because there are so many already.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>With that lens Tiffen filters is more than enough and you can get away with not buying wide-angle filters. You can always get better filters when you get better lenses and more experience. On a side note, are you a poker player Jen Haman from Las Vegas? :)</p>

[jennifer_harman1]

<p>Thanks for all the responses, but must say, I'm a bit overwhelmed. I believe I understand that I do not need to get a wide angle filter. Thanks for the advise to get the Hoya, even though my lens is apparently not a very good one. I was sorry to hear that. Thanks for all your input though.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Jennifer please be assured you do not repeat DO NOT have a bad lens. These forums can be a double edged sword. On one hand they can be a good resource for information and help, unfortunately on the other they can(especially for the beginner or inexperienced) be a source of great confusion. As I have alluded to in previous posts there is an awful lot of people who give the impression that if a lens is not Canon L series or a Prime as opposed to a Zoom then it is sub standard, this view is very wrong and has to be put into perspective.<br>

Q. Are L series lenses better than non L ?<br /> A. Of course they are thats why they cost so much.<br>

Q. Are primes better than Zooms<br>

A. For Critical (and I mean critical) image quality and bokeh, yes. <br>

Q. Does that then make all other lenses useless<br /> A. Absolutely not!</p>

<p>There are more non L than L kenses out there believe me. If an L series lens was an Aston Martin DB9 then your lens would be a really nice Jaguar and most people would be happy with that. :-)</p>

<p>I have the 28-135 and my other lenses are considered superior to it but in "Real World" terms it is a very good lens and the best walkabout lens I own. Technique is the most important thing in your arsenal not the most expensive lens money can buy.</p>

<p>Have look at Canon 28-135 users group on flick and you will see that this is no slouch. Be inspired, dont worry about your lens and go out and enjoy it and most importantly have fun.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/28-135/pool/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/28-135/pool/</a></p>

<p>On a final note, the community is always divided about whether a UV lens should be kept on your lenses and will always be a point of debate, my best advice is this, if you want to protect yur investment and would feel better having a filter permanently on your lens then get one but buy a good one. If you have the hood fitted to the lens all the time as well I guarantee that in the vast majority of your shots you wont notice its there. Go take piccies.</p>

[jennifer_harman1]

<p>Thanks Gary, your words of wisdom were exactly what I needed to hear. I do appreciate that you took the time to do so. I really am having a lot of fun with my photography, and maybe someday, who knows, I might have a prime or L lens. (-:</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Jennifer, I agree with Gary. (Great link, BTW! Thanks!) The 28-135 is a very nice consumer zoom -- one of Canon's best. It's a bit klunky, but it's also very good optically. It deserves a good filter if you're going to use one.</p>

<p>Don't make the mistake that I made eons ago when I was starting. I bought only the cheapest filters. Of course I was a kid and couldn't afford much. I recently pulled out one of my old cameras (a Pentax Spotmatic F with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and a Tiffen UV on it) and peered through the viewfinder. The image looked awful. My immediate thought was that the optics needed cleaning. I cleaned the filter, the lens (front and back), and even the viewfinder eyepiece. it still looked awful. I then unscrewed the Tiffen UV filter, and it looked great.</p>

<p>I wasn't pointing the camera into the sun or anything. I was inside. There was a large window nearby, but on the north side of the house -- no direct sunlight hitting inside the room. There was also a ceiling fan light on. Just those light sources caused so much flare and ghosting that it was like looking through a dirty lens. There was nothing subtle about it. Anyone would have noticed -- and I SHOULD have noticed, even as an inexperienced kid.</p>

<p>Fortunately I started buying only top filters many years ago. I've always felt very good about the Hoya Pro-1 and HMC products. I've never experienced any flare or ghosting from them. They are of a quality equivalent to the elements in my (mostly L) lenses. They're optically flat, clear, and reflectance-free. If I were you, I'd buy Hoya HMC, which is the better value. Pro-1 might be better for an ultrawide lens like the 10-22mm, but your 28-135 doesn't zoom so wide as to present that sort of problem.</p>

<p>Of course this is a very, very controversial and contentious subject (whether or not to use protective UV filters). Other people will differ strongly. However, in my work in the real world, I see no adverse consequences. (<a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm">www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm</a>)</p>

 

[karl_lehmann]

<p>Jennifer, Gary is right - there is nothing wrong with your lens and I didn't mean to imply there was. But the advice from others to spend an extra $60 for a multicoated polarizer is way over the top. It's a wonder none of them told you to get rid of your 50D and buy a Hasselblad.</p>

<p>Before the gearheads get too upset, I will admit to using only multicoated filters myself and I'm sure using the multicoated polarizer instead of an uncoated one makes a perceptible difference at least 1% of the time. But I get to write off the extra cost. I would never tell a beginner to spend that much for a tiny incremental improvement when she could put it toward something more useful like a tripod or a second lens instead.</p>

<p> </p>

[karl_lehmann]

<p>Also - Jennifer, good prime lenses can be very inexpensive. You can get one for less than the cost of a multicoated polarizer ;-). "Prime" just means they don't zoom. They usually provide better image quality than even the best zooms, but the difference is often minor. Most of us use zooms a lot of the time anyway because they are more versatile.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>As a follow-up to Karl's advice, if you are persuaded that crappy filters are just as good as excellent filters 99% of the time (which they are not), then I would fall in the camp that would urge you not to use filters at all. If you hang out on this list any amount of time, you'll see people posting questions about "What's wrong with my lens?!" They'll show a horrible-looking sample shot with lots of ghosting and flair, and everyone will respond to take the crappy filter off the lens. Then if the poster has the courtesy to reply back, the response is almost always that the problem had been resolved by doing so.</p>

<p>If you wear eyeglasses, you may know the difference between coated and uncoated lenses. It makes all the difference in the world. If you don't know this, ask someone who has worn both types of glasses. You'll recognize the people wearing coated lenses because you won't see strong reflections in their lenses, and you will see their eyes much more clearly. (This should be a pretty strong indication of what they do for image quality, BTW.)</p>

<p>Also if you have any experience with antique cameras, you'll know that multicoated lenses are MUCH better than monocoated lenses, which are MUCH better than uncoated lenses. This is true in 100% of shooting situations, although the difference becomes rather profound if you do something like point the lens into the sun. So to suggest that lens coatings don't matter is utter nonsense. (Sorry, Karl.)</p>

<p>It seems stupid to me to spend so much money on a fine camera and then put a piece of glorified window glass over the lens. It's a bit like putting Chinese-made, no-name Walmart tires on a nice sports car. Dumb. Go for the multicoated, flat-ground optical glass, and you'll have no regrets.</p>

[jennifer_harman1]

<p>Sarah, Karl, thanks go much for your great comments. BTW Gary, I liked the link. Wow, I feel like such a newbie with my photography. It's been about 8 years since I took a few classes and played with it some. I lived in FL and was fortunate enough to tag along with Milton Heiberg and did some great bird photography. I learned a lot from him, but unfortunately, over the years have forgotten more than I knew. I'm working on getting up to speed again (got a huge vacation planned for next year and plan to do a ton of nature photography). <br>

<a href="http://www.miltonheiberg.com">http://www.miltonheiberg.com</a>  <br>

After weighing all advice, here's what I've done so far. I'm going to go with the school of thought to protect my lens, so I got the Hoya Ultraviolet UV(0) Super Multi-Coated (S-HMC) glass filter. I hope that's a good choice. I'm pretty good with handling zooms...I have a Canon 28-105, a 75-300 w/IS and a Tamron 17-35 that was a gift. I haven't done much with that one though. I have good filters on my other two Canon's, so I went with what I hoped was a good mid-range UV. Next, I'll get a Hoya Polarizer and will get a good one. <br>

Everyone has been absolutely wonderful with the advise, and I do so appreciate it. Thanks bunches!<br /><br /></p>

[karl_lehmann]

<p>Sarah, have you ever considered using a lens hood? Or removing the filter when you don't need it?</p>

<p>While we're putting words in each others mouths, I"ll also point out that any assertion that putting a filter in front of a lens will improve its optical quality is utter nonsense.</p>

<p>And a reminder to all that certain words should never be used on this forum. That's not because they are bad words, it's only because using them here has the same effect as poking a hornets' nest. Three of those words are "Tiffen", "Sigma" and "Nikon".</p>

<p>Don't worry Sarah, I'm only teasing. But you have to admit you deserved it.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Karl, a lens hood does nothing to help with ghosting, which IMO is the biggest problem with crappy filters. My lenses don't wear hoods anyway, because they're quite bulky and awkward. I rarely shoot in any situation that puts the sun on the lens, and when that happens, I just find shade or use my hand.</p>

<p>As for removing and replacing filters, yes, I do that too, depending on what I'm doing, but there is ordinarily no need to remove a high quality UV filter. Of course we're now getting into the classic argument of whether one should or shouldn't use a protective filter. (And remember that there are other filters too, such as polarizers.) I must say I was really pissed recently when some volcanic ash etched little spots in my Pro-1 UV. Then I remembered, "Oh, yeah, my $1300 lens beneath the filter did NOT get etched, which was why I had the filter on the lens in the first place." So did my UV actually "improve" the optical quality of my lens? Well, no, but it did preserve it. I think that's worthwhile. Moreover, the filter never harmed a single one of my shots in its several years of life.</p>

<p>(Rest in peace, my little friend. I am grateful for your years of hard service and your ultimate sacrifice!) ;-)</p>

<p>Jennifer, I think you'll like the S-HMC filters. :-)</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>LOL Sarah thats an Ouch! and a Phew! story all rolled into one but shows that a good filter can save a lot of heartache. I personally use hoods on all my lenses and about 3 months ago the head fell off of my monopod (dont ask!) with my 50D and 17-55 f2.8 still attached. The lens and body bounced (concrete) on the front rim of the hood and no damage sustained to either lens or body. The only damage sustained was when I involuntarily bit my heart which was in my mouth at the time. :-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Head fell off the monopod! Ouch right back! 8-]</p>

<p>Yeah, there's nothing like a plastic hood to take the impact gracefully. True. However, I've never dropped or banged a camera... except for one. It was my first antique camera -- a very nice Kodak Monitor Six-Twenty I picked up at a garage sale on the wealthy side of town in the mid 1970's. (I was a teenager then.) I worked very hard to restore the bellows, which had several holes running up and down the corners. I then did a lot of portraiture with it. (It did a very nice job.) Unfortunately my tripod did not have locking legs of any sort. My dog came by, nudged a leg, and the entire rig came crashing to the floor. I fixed it, though. ;-)</p>

<p>Something about tripods has always me nervous since then!</p>