But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scratches?
It's not major but it's there. But who knows it's the reason. But if that's really the reason, then the affect of these tiny scuffs are really major.
I should post you the close up of the filter, but again, I'm too lazy now, hehe..
:allteeth:
By the way, you probably heard this before, that "modern" lenses actually don't benefit from UV filter because the coating on the lens is already acting as UV filtering. But when they are talking about "modern", what is modern here? Since AI ? or AF or something? I'm curious to know which lenses are considered modern here. Do you happen to know?
Well, like the 18-55, it has a plastic lens mount and really is produced as an "introductory" lens. That said, I like the 18-55 better than this lens. Slower focus at the long end, combined with the lens having to be wide open most of the time (maximum aperture) create some inconsistent focusing and lower performance. I definitely has its place, though, and performs pretty well stopped down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyline889
this really is worse than audio!
You have recognized NAS and it is clawing at your door, begging to come in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kin0kin
Why not the 70-200mm VR? That's an easy question:
1 X 70-200mm = 2 X 18-200mm = 4-5 X 18-70mm I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise.
You can do the pricing math all day long, and it will drive you bonkers, since companies like Nikon and Canon are masterful at creating price levels where it is almost better to "step up" to another model, while (sometimes) paying too much for a base model. The only exceptions seem to be the kit lenses, since they want you to get the more expensive body.
Anyway, for a D50/D70/D80 etc user, there seem to be three Nikkor lenses for that mid/long telephoto range and in the low to mid price range for quality telephotos (I'm ignoring the $1000+ category)
I feel that the 70-300 offers the best compromise for quality and an affordable lens in that range. Plus, you get VR and AF-S. That said, keep in mind that constant aperture zooms are really worth the money if you are planning on keeping the lens for life. Constant aperture means the lens does not have to be wide open for an average light condition, improving the image quality.
Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose.
My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper.
She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots.
We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it.
Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation :evil:
__________________
Home Setup: M-Audio Audiophile 192 ->I Need Headphones!!!!!
Portable Setup: iPod 4g 40gb->Shure E4/ Koss KSC-75
Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose.
My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper.
She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots.
We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it.
Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation :evil:
But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scrat
Yes, I've seen plenty of used lens ads that say "small scratch or some dust particles ...won't affect quality" and they're probably right. But IMO, a few scratches on a filter or the lens' front element would do much more to diffuse light/reduce contrast, than a clean piece of coated optical glass (filter) over the lens. Each lens usually has 7, 8, 9, or 10 elements (pieces of glass) in them already, so how much can one more hurt? I read one article where someone said "it's like shooting through a window" ... it's not a window, it's a thin piece of precision, coated, optical glass made to be shot through. To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a difference at all between the test shots you did ... and that was with a scratched filter.
And yes I've heard that modern lenses don't need UV filtration, and that's probably true. As far as what would be considered "modern" ... your guess is as good as mine. I"ve also heard that modern lenses (and filters) are made with harder glass and some with scratch-resistant coatings, which is also probably true ... but coatings do wear off eventually ... a little bit every time you clean them. I always buy scratch-resistant coating for my eyeglasses and clean them carefully, but eventually noticeable swirls and scratches do appear. Again, that's why I'd rather be cleaning a filter all the time than the lens itself. My reason for using filters is not for UV protection, it's for damage protection. Every time I clean a filter instead of my front lens element makes me feel I've kept that lens pristine that much longer. When I'm in a wet, foggy, or sandy environment, I like the idea of the filter taking the hit, not my lens. And if and when that accidental bump happens, I feel better having that extra protection. And like I've said, the filter can be removed while shooting if you're truly concerned about a loss of quality .... but those test shots you did, with a scratched filter, convince me that any difference is minuscule. I took some shots of a friend's kittens last weekend, (see below)all with B+W filters left on to protect against nose prints, and I'm more than satisfied with the contrast. In fact, today's lenses are too sharp for most portraiture, so for portraits at least, some dust, a few scratches, or another piece of glass in front of the lens is actually preferable. IMO, it really boils down to personal priorities and preferences. I'll stop beating this dead horse now.
__________________
I wondered why the golf ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
mbriant: Yeah, I agree, (I actually mentioned it before) the difference in contrast is very little but it's there. You won't be able to tell unless you really look for it. But take my comparison results as for my filter in particular only, not L37c in general.
Hey, I just remember I got this Marumi skylight filter that came with my 50mm 1.4. This is supposed to be the el cheapo one right? I might just make a comparison test again today using this 50mm 1.4 and see if there's any difference or not. This one is still very clean. If I can't find the difference, this filter will be attached permanently on my 50mm, cause it has a useful built-in lens hood too.
Do you think testing filter indoor (room lighting) is better than outdoor (sunlight)? I'm not really sure if it's same or not. eg. if the lens' coating don't filter UV, so difference from outdoor test will be more evident, but then (stupid question), is there an ultraviolet ray in room lighting?
perplex: didn't some of the users (including me) already mentioned about the 50mm a few posts earlier?
It'a my understanding that UV is/was a problem in sunlight, so I imagine outside would be the best place to test. But like you, I've heard that UV isn't really a factor these days, especially with digital cameras, so I wouldn't worry about it. Here's a private epinions review on your filter. Of course you have to take it with a grain of salt, since this guy obviously isn't an optics professional. He comes up with a <5% loss of resolution, which is a subjective opinion and simply his way of trying to explain the difference he claims to see. I very much doubt it's an accurate number.
Like with subjective listening tests in audio, I really wonder how much knowing in advance which shot is which might create a pre-conception and therefore influence an opinion. If you ever do more tests, post the pics without identifying which is which and let's see how well head-fi's photographers can tell the difference. It would be interesting. It does seem to me however that a photographic print would be a better way to judge than a screen print or a magazine reproduction since the latter two don't offer the same resolution and detail as a photographic print can.
I havent received the 17-50mm in fact, I'm placing order tomorrow, but if nsjong take my 18-70mm, I might just jump to 18-200mm VR!
Well it's winter now, nothing much that I could take...but I took 2 quick shots from my window a few days ago with my 18-70mm:
and of course the 85mm has taken over for portrait. I must say that the 17-80mm actually has very nice and smooth bokeh as well.
was the lens on full wide on the second picture? the barrel distortion seems to be worse on it compared to the first picture even though they seem to be taking the same shot.
i find the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 really interesting as it's only about 1/3 the cost of the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. does anyone here have experience with both? i was saving up for the nikon but if the tamron is almost as good, it's another $800 that i could spend elsewhere.
__________________ feedback
Music on Rotation | Estelle - Shine | Jeff Tain Watts - Detained | Grand Avenue - The Outside
I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise.
