Lens Filter Overkill?

[Mr. Chronopoulos]

I've been thinking about my shooting technique today, and I wanted to set a couple things straight before I go shooting tomorrow.

Equipment:

D90

Nikkor 18-105 VR

Nikkor 70-300 VR II

I know, I need more lenses. Recommendations appreciated. :p

Anyway, I've got 2 filters attached to each lens. They both have a UV filter and a circular polarizer. I know what they both do and why they're used, but am I hurting myself by using both?

I haven't been entirely satisfied with my shots as of late, and I'm wondering if it's been a result of these filters (or maybe I'm just going through a shoddy-shooting funk).

[Draconian Guppy]

UV protects lens from UV, basically does nothing but protect the lens itself from scratching. Polarizer reduces glare in water shots ( and reduces exposure for bout 2 stops). how about you post a couple of shots and say what you don't like about them, as for lens, primes are always a must.

[houlty]

if they're cheap filters, they they can affect image quality... like i read somewhere, why put a cheap bit of glass in front of an expensive lens.

try some with/without shots and see what the resulting images look like.

[bangbang023 Veteran]

if they're cheap filters, they they can affect image quality... like i read somewhere, why put a cheap bit of glass in front of an expensive lens.

try some with/without shots and see what the resulting images look like.

I don't know anything about photography and was going to suggest the same.

[remus_lupin]

Well, I wouldn't use two filters... I mean really, there is no point in your case... since (as someone stated) UV filters do nothing other than protect the lens (in film however, the uv helps) ... so if it's underneath the polarizer then its literally doing nothing, other than possible degrading image quality... I think if you use too many filters image quality begins degrade, especially if they are not high quality filters... In addition, polarizers are only used under special circumstances, so it is just making it more difficult to take pictures (in some conditions) with the polarizers on.

So I would do this: Keep the polarizers off all the time. If you need one, remove the UV and temporarily put on the polarizer.

As for new lenses... as someone said prime lenses ftw!

35mm 1.8G is a nice, "new", cheap lens (I actually think it is one of Nikon's cheapest lenses currently offered - other than like a kit 18-55)

edit: I guess even saying "new" is a bit exaggerated since I bought it for myself last Christmas :p - it was new at that time :p-

[Another Canuck]

If any of the filters are causing a problem, it's likely the polarizer.

Personally I use a simple clear protector filter on both my lenses (I'm still building my collection :p). I use a Hoya PRO1 Digital Protector. They're about $40 a pop, but well worth it. I've heard good things of Schneider/B+W filters too.

[threetonesun]

This is a good prime lens as well:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2137/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.8D.html

Or, sell the two you have and get this and a prime:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2159/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

[crazzy88ss]

You don't need the UV on there if you have the polarizer. I used to use my polarizer a lot, but I haven't touched it in about 2 years now.

[remus_lupin]

yeah I hear the 50 1.8 is good as well, but the 50mm may be too long on DX, just use your 18-105 and determine what you can see yourself using more often, the 35 or the 50.

[Argote]

Keep the polarizers off all the time. If you need one, remove the UV and temporarily put on the polarizer.

THIS! if you have the polarizer o n, it is already doing the protection job the UV filter is supposed to do. Make sure you got decent filters. I bought a non-multi-coated Tiffen for my 50/1.8 and it produces some pretty awful ghosting at night.

As for new lenses... as someone said prime lenses ftw!

35mm 1.8G is a nice, "new", cheap lens (I actually think it is one of Nikon's cheapest lenses currently offered - other than like a kit 18-55)

35/1.8, 50/1.8 are good starting points. Depending on what you want to shoot the most you could also consider a Macro lens or a Wide Angle lens.

[crazzy88ss]

I find the 50mm f1.8D way too soft. Maybe I got a bad copy, but mine's stupidly soft.

[remus_lupin]

I find the 50mm f1.8D way too soft. Maybe I got a bad copy, but mine's stupidly soft.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

scroll down to sharpness, apparently it is very sharp!

Maybe you did get a dud!

[Prince Charming]

Mhhhmm, the legend of the K-Rock. Prime lenses are usually rather sharp, due to their optical simplicity, but you can still get duds, and while they're usually sharp, the cheaper primes can be especially soft wide open (as well as producing questionable bokeh).

[crazzy88ss]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

scroll down to sharpness, apparently it is very sharp!

Maybe you did get a dud!

Yea, lol, sure. That's at f8. Scroll down to "compared," the section RIGHT blow that. Look how "sharp" this is at f1.8.

Yea, that's SOOO sharp :/

Also, you linked a ken rockwell site? really? :/

[remus_lupin]

Yea, lol, sure. That's at f8. Scroll down to "compared," the section RIGHT blow that. Look how "sharp" this is at f1.8.

Yea, that's SOOO sharp :/

Also, you linked a ken rockwell site? really? :/

Look how "sharp" the other lenses are at their max aperture... sharpness is only relative. We determine whether or not an image/lens is sharp because we have a predetermined idea of how sharp an image should be. Those are extremes, 100% crop at a corner, of course f/1.8 isn't going to be extremely sharp, but your comparing it to other lenses.

But you're right, idk how good of quality those lenses are either, so maybe a decent lens (around that price) will look amazing at a 100% crop wide open.

Maybe for someone who is not spending that much on a new lens doesn't need it to be super sharp wide open. Sure, there are sharper lenses out their, but they cost more. So, I guess you can either 1. buy a better lens or 2. stop it down to f/4 and get a sharper photo.

And to your last comment, I just typed in google for a review on that lens and that's the first thing that came up, I didn't exactly feel like scouring the web for a definite answer, as I don't really care :p

And finally, I feel like I should bullet each line

PS: Back to GT5

[crazzy88ss]

It's well known that Ken Rockwell is terrible.

If you're stopping an f1.8 lens down to f4, what's the point of buying it in the first place? The most I'll stop down my f1.4 lens is to f2, otherwise I have OTHER lenses that cover that aperture range.

[Draconian Guppy]

It's well known that Ken Rockwell is terrible.

If you're stopping an f1.8 lens down to f4, what's the point of buying it in the first place? The most I'll stop down my f1.4 lens is to f2, otherwise I have OTHER lenses that cover that aperture range.

+1 ken rockwell and his d40...

Agreed the most i'll stop down my 35mm is 2.8, any further than that and might as well be using kit lens...

[remus_lupin]

It's well known that Ken Rockwell is terrible.

If you're stopping an f1.8 lens down to f4, what's the point of buying it in the first place? The most I'll stop down my f1.4 lens is to f2, otherwise I have OTHER lenses that cover that aperture range.

I had no idea, thanks, if I ever find myself in need of review I will steer clear from him.

Well, I for one have never really focused upon how sharp my lenses are, I just use them as I feel they are needed, and not everyone can afford a bunch of different lenses, so sure he could buy a lens that would cover other aperture ranges besides an extreme like 1.4 or 1.8... but what if there is a moment of dim light and that's all he has, then that 1.4 or 1.8 would come in handy even if it is soft. It's better than being blurry...

Of course you're right, I am not disputing the fact that the reason you spend the extra money for a fast lens is to USE those apertures.

CONCLUSION: don't buy the 50mm 1.8D it is too soft :p

+1 ken rockwell and his d40...

Agreed the most i'll stop down my 35mm is 2.8, any further than that and might as well be using kit lens...

Really? come on now, I never touch my kit lens, and I use my 35mm anywhere from 1.8 to 11... Why would you switch to your kit lens if you already have your 35mm out, and you want an aperture of 7.1... maybe I took this too literally, I don't actually think you'd change your lens just because you don't want to use anything smaller than 2.8 :p

Edit: Mind you, I only started taking pics just over a year ago, I still don't know much, I just learn from experience

[Argote]

Ken Rockwell is pretty much a moron who has the intention of driving site traffic rather than informing objectively.

[crazzy88ss]

Really? come on now, I never touch my kit lens, and I use my 35mm anywhere from 1.8 to 11... Why would you switch to your kit lens if you already have your 35mm out, and you want an aperture of 7.1... maybe I took this too literally, I don't actually think you'd change your lens just because you don't want to use anything smaller than 2.8 :p

Edit: Mind you, I only started taking pics just over a year ago, I still don't know much, I just learn from experience

You wouldn't. And the 35mm f1.8 G is FAR FAR sharper than the 50mm f1.8 D. There's YEARS of difference between them, and maybe even about $100.

[remus_lupin]

Ken Rockwell is pretty much a moron who has the intention of driving site traffic rather than informing objectively.

lmao why I have never come across this before is besides me :p

edit: now that I know where not to go for reviews, what are some recommendations by y'all for some unbiased reviewers?

You wouldn't. And the 35mm f1.8 G is FAR FAR sharper than the 50mm f1.8 D. There's YEARS of difference between them, and maybe even about $100.

haha, yeah I just checked nikon's site, I didn't realize it was so cheap, maybe I will pick one up (hahah kidding)

[Draconian Guppy]

I had no idea, thanks, if I ever find myself in need of review I will steer clear from him.

Well, I for one have never really focused upon how sharp my lenses are, I just use them as I feel they are needed, and not everyone can afford a bunch of different lenses, so sure he could buy a lens that would cover other aperture ranges besides an extreme like 1.4 or 1.8... but what if there is a moment of dim light and that's all he has, then that 1.4 or 1.8 would come in handy even if it is soft. It's better than being blurry...

Of course you're right, I am not disputing the fact that the reason you spend the extra money for a fast lens is to USE those apertures.

CONCLUSION: don't buy the 50mm 1.8D it is too soft :p

Really? come on now, I never touch my kit lens, and I use my 35mm anywhere from 1.8 to 11... Why would you switch to your kit lens if you already have your 35mm out, and you want an aperture of 7.1... maybe I took this too literally, I don't actually think you'd change your lens just because you don't want to use anything smaller than 2.8 :p

Edit: Mind you, I only started taking pics just over a year ago, I still don't know much, I just learn from experience

Well yeah, Obviously I wouldn't change my lens, BUT the point of buying a lens capable of 1.8 is to use it around that aperture most of teh time. My point is, if you're always shooting above 3.5, then clearly, fast primes aren't what you need (not saying this is your case, just saying it as an example ). It's like buying a V8 car and never going past 2nd gear!

Ken Rockwell is pretty much a moron who has the intention of driving site traffic rather than informing objectively.

Preach brother, PREACH!

[Mr. Chronopoulos]

ANYWAY!

Thank you; all your replies have been very helpful. I'm going to go shooting tomorrow without the filters and see how it goes.

As far as a new lens is concerned, I've been thinking something in the lower focal length range, possibly a fixed 35 or 50mm. I don't really have a budget set for it, but I'm not looking to spend a thousand dollars on a lens (yet). I got my D90, 18-105, and 70-300 from Newegg for ~$1,800 a couple months ago. I'd say I'll spend $3-400 on a new lens if it's really worth it (and I'm trusting you guys on this one).

I'll have my iPad with me tomorrow, so I'll update with shooting results when I can.

Again, thanks all for the replies. Keep going with the lens suggestions. :p

[Draconian Guppy]

for $400ish you can get the 50mm 1.4 OR around $200ish 35mm 1.8 , even cheaper, which is what the guys have been mentioning is the 50mm 1.8D but as pointed out, very soft.

[remus_lupin]

for $400ish you can get the 50mm 1.4 OR around $200ish 35mm 1.8 , even cheaper, which is what the guys have been mentioning is the 50mm 1.8D but as pointed out, very soft.

+1 right on the money!