The Amazing Sony A7 / A9 / Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
So I somehow managed to accumulate 11 spare UV filters…is anyone of them a 62mm?!

Nope!

52, 58 x 2, 67, 72 x 3, 77 x 4 and an 82mm.

I think I am set for filters for life.
 
Messages
12,709
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Thanks for the info.

But how can you find them a waste of time if you haven't wasted any time on it to begin with?

It's like the chicken and the egg !
Nice bitchy comment there for no reason, you should rename yourself after an aperture. I've used many filters, just not UV ones, they don't do anything to benefit as far as I'm concerned. You might think they do, good for you, I didn't quote you btw, I was following up on woof's post. Just saying aloud ... The last bit of your post makes zero sense, how is not using filters anything like chicken-egg? enlighten me.

You're quick to comment on any post I make in here Ray, but when I respond to you in other threads don't say boo ... Is this your safe place? :D Example: I was the only one to add a sensible comment to your Dublin thread but you couldn't be arsed replying because it wasn't challenging, but helpful and you probably despised that

Now if anyone had been more polite and asked 'why not?' - well, this explains it better than I could: https://lenscraft.co.uk/photography-tutorials/are-uv-filters-worth-it/

The only good reason to use UV filters nowadays is for physical protection. I have never scratched a lens in 30 odd years doing photography. If you're using them for that purpose because you do knock a lens occasionally then why not, the better ones don't degrade IQ - but if you're not the type that bangs your lenses off of stuff randomly, then they are kinda pointless.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Nice bitchy comment there for no reason, you should rename yourself after an aperture. I've used many filters, just not UV ones, they don't do anything to benefit as far as I'm concerned. You might think they do, good for you, I didn't quote you btw, I was following up on woof's post. Just saying aloud ... The last bit of your post makes zero sense, how is not using filters anything like chicken-egg? enlighten me.

You're quick to cmment on any post I make in here Ray, but when I respond to you in other threads don't say boo ... Is this your safe place? :D Example: i was the only one to add a sensible comment to your Dublin thread but you couldn't be arsed replying because it wasn't challenging, but helpful

Now if anyone had been more polite and asked 'why not?' - well, this explains it better than I could: https://lenscraft.co.uk/photography-tutorials/are-uv-filters-worth-it/

The only good reason to use UV filters nowadays is for physical protection. I have never scratched a lens in 30 odd years doing photography. If you're using them for that purpose because you do knock a lens occasionally then why not, the better ones don't degrade IQ - but if you're not the type that bangs your lenses off of stuff randomly, then they are kinda pointless.
It's supposed to be funny about the chicken and the egg….

This isn't a new topic so without reading all that wall of text I know what you are going to say.

You are going to say you haven't damaged a lens ever
You are going to say that is what the hood is for
You are going to mention about IQ

Am I right?

I can also give you personal experience where it has saved my lenses a few times.

p.s. I don't respond to you because I have you on ignore, I only reply to this as you posted followed immediately to a post I made.
 
Messages
12,709
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
It's supposed to be funny about the chicken and the egg….

This isn't a new topic so without reading all that wall of text I know what you are going to say.

You are going to say you haven't damaged a lens ever
You are going to say that is what the hood is for
You are going to mention about IQ

Am I right?

I can also give you personal experience where it has saved my lenses a few times.

p.s. I don't respond to you because I have you on ignore, I only reply to this as you posted followed immediately to a post I made.
If you have me on ignore then ... ignore ... :rolleyes: if you didn't you'd have seen I was trying to be helpful to you in other threads, also commented on your trolley image in he Fuji thread for example.

I haven't damaged the front element of a lens , ever - Nope, a hood is to make the lens look cooler silly, and this 'Am I right' nonsense, you can see my reply .. you're commenting after the fact. Put me back on ignore there good lad, because you're just wasting both our time and I would have never noticed only thought you were a bit ignorant for never responding :D
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,494
Edit My Images
Yes
About Half Half with Hoya, one Kenko 77mm, I got this free.

Off the top of my head there are 2 x 72mm B+W.
I am convinced that hoya's kill the IQ a little. I have a few Pro-digital ones myself. b+w are definitely better but eye watering expensive.

I normally only use them 30-40% of the time when I feel they might help with protection.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,232
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
I am convinced that hoya's kill the IQ a little. I have a few Pro-digital ones myself. b+w are definitely better but eye watering expensive.

I normally only use them 30-40% of the time when I feel they might help with protection.
Any filter at all, no matter if it's the best grade of glass on planet earth - affects IQ.

They're good if you're shooting in nasty conditions etc for protection to the front element though. I've never used one and never will, other than if it's an ND etc that is used for creative effect
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I am convinced that hoya's kill the IQ a little. I have a few Pro-digital ones myself. b+w are definitely better but eye watering expensive.

I normally only use them 30-40% of the time when I feel they might help with protection.
The Hoya stuff are older, I haven't bought one in at least 5+ years.

The 82mm is B+W...that was expensive, but not as much as the 77mm Variable ND.

Any filter at all, no matter if it's the best grade of glass on planet earth - affects IQ.

They're good if you're shooting in nasty conditions etc for protection to the front element though. I've never used one and never will, other than if it's an ND etc that is used for creative effect
Yup, you can't put something in front of the lens and not have it affect light transmission, even the air. It will block something.

I will continue to use them though.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,494
Edit My Images
Yes
Any filter at all, no matter if it's the best grade of glass on planet earth - affects IQ.

They're good if you're shooting in nasty conditions etc for protection to the front element though. I've never used one and never will, other than if it's an ND etc that is used for creative effect
sure I didn't say they didn't affect I.Q. But it saves me a lot of pain and hassle. for example when using it around my son, he would simply touch the front the element. I can give few other example where it comes in handy for me. If I am out shooting on my own in good conditions, I normally take it off.
 
Messages
2,941
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I have a few UV filters Hoya and B+W. I think the Hoya filters came free with lenses I have bought over the last few years. Can't say I have noticed the B+W being any better.

I don't use them often but I would use them when shooting on the beach as I have always worried that removing sand from a front lens element could risk causing damage. In saying that I have cleaned sand of the filters lots of times and it doesn't seem to have caused any damage.

I have also used them while shooting some stuff for a welding company, a sand blasting company and a few other things where I though there could potentially be a risk to the front element.
 
Messages
4,391
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
No
I'm a UV filter user. Had a period without recently, but went back. I personally prefer to wipe the filter if it gets fingered and have never seen any noticeable degradation. Use Hoya Pro's but have used B&W before, again, no discerning difference. All that said, haven't bothered on the little 55, as all my filters are 67 and bigger, the front element is much more recessed too.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,494
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a few UV filters Hoya and B+W. I think the Hoya filters came free with lenses I have bought over the last few years. Can't say I have noticed the B+W being any better.

I don't use them often but I would use them when shooting on the beach as I have always worried that removing sand from a front lens element could risk causing damage. In saying that I have cleaned sand of the filters lots of times and it doesn't seem to have caused any damage.

I have also used them while shooting some stuff for a welding company, a sand blasting company and a few other things where I though there could potentially be a risk to the front element.
I'm a UV filter user. Had a period without recently, but went back. I personally prefer to wipe the filter if it gets fingered and have never seen any noticeable degradation. Use Hoya Pro's but have used B&W before, again, no discerning difference. All that said, haven't bothered on the little 55, as all my filters are 67 and bigger, the front element is much more recessed too.
Interesting. I have mainly used hoya Pro, minolta, b+w and zeiss. The last 2 were definitely slightly better than the first 2 IME.
I don't have same size ones of these to try on same lens. Let me see if I can find step down rings to do some proper tests.
 
Messages
526
Name
bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't usually use filters much but I do have one permanently fitted too my macro lens for protection because you get the front element so close to things it would be all too easy to scratch it.
 
Messages
4,391
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
No
Interesting. I have mainly used hoya Pro, minolta, b+w and zeiss. The last 2 were definitely slightly better than the first 2 IME.
I don't have same size ones of these to try on same lens. Let me see if I can find step down rings to do some proper tests.
I can be a picky pixel peeper (been called worse) but honestly can't see any difference whatsoever with the Hoya Pro's. If I could, I'd ditch them. They hold up well enough to flare too.
 
Messages
272
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry to ask again but is anyone in here using the new Tamron 17-28? If so what do you think?

I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on one as it's a great price compared to the GM 16-35 and it seems to get excellent reviews.

Sorry if it has been discussed already, I have been away for 3 weeks :)
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,824
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I've just looked at my filters and I lost count at 18. One I did count is a hoya 62mm uv if you want it raymond. If you want it let me know and I could post it sometime this week. foc.
 
Messages
2,941
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
Sorry to ask again but is anyone in here using the new Tamron 17-28? If so what do you think?

I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on one as it's a great price compared to the GM 16-35 and it seems to get excellent reviews.

Sorry if it has been discussed already, I have been away for 3 weeks :)
We have 2 of them and I have used one at about 6 weddings so far and it's been spot on, I much prefer it to the 16-35 f/4 I had previously.

It is razor sharp at it's widest and acceptable sharp for me at it's longest end.

Initially I was planning on keeping my 16-35 f/4 and passing it on to my wife but I have now sold it and purchased another Tamron for her as well.

It is very light weight which is a huge bonus for us and while the build quality isn't amazing, it's fine.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,824
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Someone should post 100% crops with UV filter on and off - a subject with plenty of detail.
Straight from camera no tweaking.
I don't own any.
I'd normally do this out of interest but I don't have a pc at the mo so I can't get any pics off my camera and onto the forum.

I wouldn't expect any real drop in image quality but I would possibly expect to see some effect if there are bright lights in the frame.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
We have 2 of them and I have used one at about 6 weddings so far and it's been spot on, I much prefer it to the 16-35 f/4 I had previously.

It is razor sharp at it's widest and acceptable sharp for me at it's longest end.

Initially I was planning on keeping my 16-35 f/4 and passing it on to my wife but I have now sold it and purchased another Tamron for her as well.

It is very light weight which is a huge bonus for us and while the build quality isn't amazing, it's fine.
I expected better build quality for £900 but it is acceptable. It does have a rubber gasket at the mount so that's good, it zooms internally which is also good. Ther alternative is just bigger, more expensive, heavier, extends when zoom.

I am not sure there is any reason to get the Sony except for the badge.
 
Messages
272
Edit My Images
Yes
We have 2 of them and I have used one at about 6 weddings so far and it's been spot on, I much prefer it to the 16-35 f/4 I had previously.

It is razor sharp at it's widest and acceptable sharp for me at it's longest end.

Initially I was planning on keeping my 16-35 f/4 and passing it on to my wife but I have now sold it and purchased another Tamron for her as well.

It is very light weight which is a huge bonus for us and while the build quality isn't amazing, it's fine.
I expected better build quality for £900 but it is acceptable. It does have a rubber gasket at the mount so that's good, it zooms internally which is also good. Ther alternative is just bigger, more expensive, heavier, extends when zoom.

I am not sure there is any reason to get the Sony except for the badge.

Thank you very much for your comments.
Sony GM glass is superb, I already have a few GM lenses but the price for the Sony GM is crazy compared to the £900 of the Tamron. Image quality seems to be not far off, sharper in some cases I've read, and size and weight are also a big plus for the Tamron so.... I think I will go with that one.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Thank you very much for your comments.
Sony GM glass is superb, I already have a few GM lenses but the price for the Sony GM is crazy compared to the £900 of the Tamron. Image quality seems to be not far off, sharper in some cases I've read, and size and weight are also a big plus for the Tamron so.... I think I will go with that one.
The biggest issue I have with it isn't the build quality, it is the reverse way the focus ring turns to zoom and also back to front between focus and zoom positions.

It can throw you off if you have another Sony zoom lens.
 
Messages
272
Edit My Images
Yes
The biggest issue I have with it isn't the build quality, it is the reverse way the focus ring turns to zoom and also back to front between focus and zoom positions.

It can throw you off if you have another Sony zoom lens.
I agree, I remember when I had a Tamron with my Nikon and it was the same, very annoying but I got used to it in the end.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
for the extra zoom range at both ends, better ergonomics, better build and probably slightly sharper too.
And of course the badge for bragging rights :D
That alone would tempt me to go for the gm instead
These are valid reasons and I thought about it too, if I use the 16-35mm a lot I would, but i might use it a few times only in a wedding day so it's not worth the justification. It's not a lens that stays on the body, it comes out for a photo and then I put it back.
 
Messages
2,941
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
These are valid reasons and I thought about it too, if I use the 16-35mm a lot I would, but i might use it a few times only in a wedding day so it's not worth the justification. It's not a lens that stays on the body, it comes out for a photo and then I put it back.
That's the same reason I got the Tamron rather than the G.M as well.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
The difference in savings can get you the 28-75/2.8, that alone can't be sniffed at. 2 for 1.

There is no business sense that makes sense to get the GM, especially when I am a prime shooter.
 
Messages
2,941
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
The difference in savings can get you the 28-75/2.8, that alone can't be sniffed at. 2 for 1.

There is no business sense that makes sense to get the GM, especially when I am a prime shooter.
That's pretty much what we did it although I will never use the 28-75mm, my missus uses it though but only for the first dance. Guess it serves as a useful back up.
 
Top