What filters for Niffty Fifty?

Tobes

Tobes

Messages
65
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all!

I have been idle for a while because of money problems. But I now have a job I love and some spare money. So I thought before I spend it on going out I should buy a Nifty Fifty from Kerso and some filters. However, I have no idea what filters I need, how much they will be and where should I get them from (does Kerso sell them?).

So someone just tell me what I need and I will do as I'm told :D

Thanks for your time,
Tobes
 
Where are Kerso's nifties at the moment? Could have done with one recently as my manual focus jobbbie scares me outside the confines of a photo-shoot!! When it works it's great, but when the shot counts - AF is one less worry ...
 
you're better off with a cheap ebay lens hood
 
Hi Tobes, Have stock can sell at
Canon 50mm 1.8 II £53
Hoya 52mm UV £6
Postage £10
Regards Ian.
Tobes said:
Hello all!

I have been idle for a while because of money problems. But I now have a job I love and some spare money. So I thought before I spend it on going out I should buy a Nifty Fifty from Kerso and some filters. However, I have no idea what filters I need, how much they will be and where should I get them from (does Kerso sell them?).

So someone just tell me what I need and I will do as I'm told :D

Thanks for your time,
Tobes
Click to expand...
 
You don't need a UV filter.
They degrade image quality and induce glare. Even if you drop the lens, you'll be very unlucky to scratch the recessed element, and it's a cheapy lens anyway. Get insurance if you're that worried (it's cheaper than a UV filter!)
You might want a circular polariser if you like the effect that gives. Depends what you're going to use it to take photos of.
 
I agree with Blapto. I have a nifty, and a Hoya UV filter, and a cheap eBay hood. I do not use the filter, ever. There is no need for one, unless you purposely throw grit at the front element, and it can only do more harm than good. Same goes for all my lenses - 6 in total. I have UV filters for all of them (mostly Hoya Pro1 or Kenko Pro1), and hoods, but only ever use the hoods. The CPL is the exception, and I rarely use that.

I'm in the market for a couple of fast primes and will not waste my money buying any more filters. It's hoods only for me from now on.
 
Blapto said:
You don't need a UV filter.
They degrade image quality and induce glare. Even if you drop the lens, you'll be very unlucky to scratch the recessed element, and it's a cheapy lens anyway. Get insurance if you're that worried (it's cheaper than a UV filter!)
Click to expand...

Blimey the voice of common sense. A rare commodity :)

+1.
 
to get a UV filter that isn't going to seriously effect the image quality of you nifty you're going to have to spend more than the price of the lens which is plain daft. Follow the advice about and ditch the UV filter. I chucked the middle of the range Hoya one from my Sigma 17-70 as images were definately less sharp and contrasty with it on and that was comparing normal size images not pixel peeping at 100%.
 
Cheap rubber hoods are £5. Canon hood is £15.
a1ex2001 said:
to get a UV filter that isn't going to seriously effect the image quality of you nifty you're going to have to spend more than the price of the lens which is plain daft. Follow the advice about and ditch the UV filter. I chucked the middle of the range Hoya one from my Sigma 17-70 as images were definately less sharp and contrasty with it on and that was comparing normal size images not pixel peeping at 100%.
Click to expand...
 
kerso said:
Cheap rubber hoods are £5. Canon hood is £15.
Click to expand...


The rubber hood is a no go:nono:. It doesnt protect teh lens from accidental bumps or drops. The plastic ebay hoods are the way to go:rules:.
 
I think people have got the wrong impression of what I am looking for in a filter. I'm not after one to protect the lens. Just filters I should be using.

I'm new at this but I assume there are filters to bring the blue out in the sky etc?...
 
You choose filters to achieve a specific effect. The choice is generally unrelated to any specific lens or type of lens, other than choosing the right filter size, and a quality to suit your budget. You have confused the issue by specifically mentioning the Nifty when in truth that is neither here nor there.

If you want rich blue skies a CPL is the perfect choice, but will only work well with specific angles of sunlight - basically at 90 degrees, more or less, to the direction you're pointing the lens.

If you want to shoot milky streams and waterfalls in bright conditions you might find a neutral density filter useful, in order to reduce the light intensity and allow longer shutter speeds. An ND filter could also allow you to open up the aperture for better portraits, in very bright conditions that might otherwise require you to stop down a lot. A CPL might serve double duty for this need, but will be a bit limited in its effect.

If you want to shoot landscapes and tame a bright sky vs a less bright foreground then a graduated neutral density filter might be called for.

The only filter I ever use these days is a CPL. Nobody can tell you what filters to buy if you don't tell them what effects you are hoping to achieve. But consider that some filter effects can be achieved in software. So, what do you want to accomplish? What software do you have?

I suspect the Hoya brochure will give you some ideas....

http://www.intro2020.co.uk/pdf/Hoya.pdf
 
For my money, the one I use most is the circular polariser as well, although I have the complete range of Lee kit.
 
Ahh OK. I only have the stock lens for my 400D at the moment. So was going to get a Nifty Fifty as I need something with a larger aperture.

So it sounds like it's pointless getting a filter for these lenses as they are cheap ones and I have no intention of wanting any effects... yet.

OK well thanks people :)
 
The thing with buying filters for the Nifty is that it has a very small filter size, and filters you buy for it will not fit larger lenses you buy in the future. You could buy larger filters and step-up rings to allow them to be fitted to the Nifty but that is probably not the most appealing/elegant solution.

The Nifty can deliver good IQ in the right conditions, despite its many failings (build quality, AF speed, AF accuracy, noisey oeration, poor MF operation, dubious bokeh, flare, colour), so it's not that it doesn't deserve filters as such, but only get what you need, when you need it, and always keep one eye on the future. i.e. a 52mm CPL is going to be as much use as a chocolate teapot on any other lens, so if you want a CPL, work out a solution that protects your investment for the future.

The reason that enlightened people recommend avoiding (UV or clear) filters for everyday protection is that they really can degrade IQ, and if it's physical protection from debris and fingers that you want, the Nifty already has a fairly well recessed front element, and a hood would add to the physical protection and aid in reducing flare by blocking stray light from entering the lens.

As I said earlier, I own filters for all my lenses (bought before I became enlightened) and now that I know better I have stopped using them. I've seen the degrading effect of even a high quality filter, first hand, and many other examples on the internet that concur with my own experiences. If I was working in a harsh environment, with flying dust/stones/mud, sea-spray etc. then I would most likely fit my UV filters for protection, but for every day photography, wandering around the zoo or shooting a wedding I see no value in them at all.

Reference....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=115953

If you Google for "UV filter lens flare" I'm sure you will find many more discussions on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top