User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Is this the result of a cheap filter?

  1. #1
    Member AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Is this the result of a cheap filter?

    I was taking a few shots with my new lens(Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM) and am very happy with the results so far, I was taking a few shots of Ollie and Banjo in the late afternoon the other day and noticed a light area in the bottom left hand corner.
    I was shooting with the sun behind and to the right of Ollie so the lens flare was expected but am wondering if this effect at the bottom left of the images was caused by the cheap Inca UV filter I was using at the time? If this is the case can anyone recommend some reasonable filters to protect my lenses?

    Cheers Dan
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that who cares, Youre a mile away and have his shoes!!" Billy Conelly

    Eos 550D Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM, 55-250mm IS, Nifty 50 and training wheels

  2. #2
    Go the Rabbitohs mudman's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Oct 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,091
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i would suggest it's lens flare. try similar light set up without the filter and see if result is similar to this.
    cheers
    cc and enjoy

    Photography is painting with light

    K7, Pentax 18-250mm zoom, Pentax 100mm macro, Sigma 50-500mm
    Velbon Sherpa tripod Photoshop CS6

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers I'll give it a try, I had my lens hood on at the time but the sun was at a pretty low angle

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lens flare is much more pronounced by the use of cheap filters in front of the lens - I would dare say the Tamron lens without the cheap filter in front of it would have handled the flare better!

  5. #5
    Other side of the hill ... WhoDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most here have little good to say about UV filters of any type and price. You may have been better served by a nice Circular Polarising Light (CPL) filter instead. That will still help to give you the richer colouring of a UV filter and also cut down on stray reflected light at the same time. I hope that helps.
    Waz
    Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind - Dr. Seuss...
    D700 | D7000 | Nikkor AF-S 18-55 DX 1:3.5-5.6G | Nikkor AF-S 55-300 DX 1:4.5-5.6 G ED | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
    My Flickr images ...

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter
    AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry JM but Im not sure what you mean,
    Are you saying that the Tamron handles flare better vs the Sigma? From all the research I did (which was a lot) the Sigma seemed to be the better lens of the two both from a flare perspective and in all round performance.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter
    AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whodo I am using the filter mainly to protect the lens, What would you suggest from a purely protective prospective?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Apr 2009
    Location
    Maleny, Qld
    Posts
    423
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Dan
    Had a similar issue (not with lens flare) but was trying to figure out why almost all of my shots werent as detailed as I was expecting, then had a "Doh" moment .. and removed the cheap UV filter i had purchased to give a little "protection" to my nice (new back then) 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM .. and now pics are much more detailed
    - Daz
    weathers good.. bird pics .... weathers bad .. storm pics..
    do or do not.. ...stop ya procrastinating!!!!
    Canon EOS 60D, Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS, EOS 300D, Canon EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 IV, Canon EF 35-70mm 3.5-4.5, Canon EF 50mm 1.8

  9. #9
    Other side of the hill ... WhoDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnzacPride View Post
    Whodo I am using the filter mainly to protect the lens, What would you suggest from a purely protective prospective?
    I'd suggest you read this thread on UV filters before using them. I had one UV filter for every lens and they all now sit useless in their cases at the bottom of my Lowpro backpack. A good solid lens cap and a reasonable amount of care and cleaning will do more for protecting your valuable lenses than a UV filter, as the referenced link will show.

  10. #10
    Member KevPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury North
    Posts
    467
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All they do is collect dust & create flare - as WhoDo suggests better to simply take care with cleaning & a sound lens cap.
    Regards
    Kevin

    Pentax K3, Pentax Tamron Sigma short glass
    Nikon D500. nikkor 200-500 f5.6.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevpride/

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Whodo,
    I have just read the thread you linked to and found it very informative.
    I think I have been a bit paranoid about my lenses since putting a slight scratch on my kit 18-55 when I first got it whilst cleaning it.

  12. #12
    Member bushbikie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sth Brisbane
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ^ +1 - I'd also suggest that you use a lens hood for a bit of extra protection as well.
    5D MkII Gripped | EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro | Extender 2x II | 580EX II & 430EX II Speedlites
    Wanted: The list is long.......so very long........(sighs)
    Oldies but still goodies: AE-1+Program | FD 28mm f/2.8 | FD 50mm f/1.4 | FD 70-210 f/4

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnzacPride View Post
    Sorry JM but Im not sure what you mean,
    Are you saying that the Tamron handles flare better vs the Sigma? From all the research I did (which was a lot) the Sigma seemed to be the better lens of the two both from a flare perspective and in all round performance.
    Sorry I should have wrote Sigma, not Tamron.

    Im saying that the lens alone would have handled less flare without the UV filter on, than with it on as seen in the photo.

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter
    AnzacPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Aug 2010
    Location
    Warrnambool
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No worries JM,
    I went out this afternoon and left the filters off with much better results. Thanks for the advice folks

    Cheers Dan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •