Slim or Regular B+W Kaesemann Filter? Does anyone have advice or an opinion on this regular Kaesemann Circular Polarizer vs. the SLIM version which is roughly the same price?
746652
I've owned both the Polarizer and 010M filter for the Canon 24-105 MM and can guarantee you will see vignetting at 24mm with the Polarizer and a slight darkening with the 010M (UV) filters. The slim filters are the way to go if you're going to be shooting anything at below 28mm. The B&W site goes into a bit more detail on what length vignetting becomes an issue but in my experiments with the 24-105 anything below 35mm using the Polarizer will vignette. If you're not planning on stacking filters (which is generally a bad idea with L glass anyway) I'd go with the thin filters and just change them out as needed. I leave the Slim Polarizer on my 17-40 mm about 85% of the time.
1822084
Yes, I have both. There isn't much point to the Clear UV Haze filter as far as having any positive effect on your photographs. It used to matter with film, but in digital the camera is immune to UV anyway so there is no positive difference in the images captured. On the minus side, adding a filter gives you one more thing that can be smudged or dusty and one more layer of glass to invite flare if you're shooting into bright light or sun. Meanwhile, the circular polarizer has a pretty major effect on photographs, particularly outdoors. It eliminates reflected light in one direction, which enables you to cut glare from water, roads, windows, and sky. There are tradeoffs too; sometimes it makes the sky too deep and unnaturally blue. But you can usually adjust to deal with that. It can also help clouds stand out more if that's what you're trying to do.
1545907
My polarizer is made by Hoya, a Japanese company. Vignetting is a common problem at wide angles, e.g. 18 mm. If you're using another filter to protect the lens (UV or skylight) try taking it off & just using the polarizing filter. Getting the filter as close to the lens as possible is the goal. Can also get a step up ring and a larger polarizer, e.g. 77 mm.
741649
Bought this a long time ago, but have not used it much - CP filters are very "personal" - you like them or you don't - Some are warmer, some cooler, and the more expensive ones usually don't seem to change the relative color intensities like many of the cheaper ones (which can make the whole picture seem quite artificial). I'm afraid it's pretty much trial and error trying to find something that you prefer. Sorry I can't be of more help.
81836
What kind of effect are you looking for? These filters are not designed to make big changes in color, they are to make blues a little bluer, greens a little greener and so on. As an example, if the sky is a lite blue , the 1/2 blue filter can be set to make the sky a slightly more blue. The "UV" filter removes some glare when used in direct sun light, Fluorescent lighting tends to change the color temperature and not in a good way, the use of the "FLD" filter can make the lighting look more like Tungsten lighting. The "CPL" filter is maybe the hardest filter to use, it is hard to see the difference that rotating the dial makes. The "CPL" filter is a "Polarizing" filter, fishermen use "Polarizing Sunglasses to be able to see in to the water and see the fish. The "CPL" filter helps in high glare places like looking thru a window in direct sun light. To see how it works, go to a river or lake and hold the filter up to one eye with one hand and rotate the dial with the other while looking into the water. The star filters require sharp/ strong points of light try setting up Xmas lights around a window or door and view it thru the filter, the number stands for the number of arms that extend out. (star-4 = four arms/ lines, star-6 =6, star-8 =8) The main thing to remember is that the view finder and or monitor on todays digital cameras are small and it is difficult to see the changes these filters make, I use a 26" HD high definition (at least 1080p) monitor using a HDMI cable thru the video out on my Canon Rebel T4i Camera. I hope this helps.
334177
You need a UV filter. Trust me, better for a $10 UV filter to get scrtched then your lens. And a circular polarizer is a must have especially since your shooting water shots.
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
727742
They are for completely different purposes. UV filter is more transparent; polarizer--among many other things--darkens skies and removes reflections.
967710
77mm. Amazon will make the filter suggestion for you. I got a B+W branded Haze filter which works well and doesn't give me the back scatter reflections of ultra bright objects a cheaper lens does. For further information, go to the blog photographylife.com (I think that's the address) where they have an extensive review of this lens. It convinced me that this was the best all-in-one lens (where I never had to change a lens from wide to telephoto that most kits have two). Also, there is a Nikon 750 kit special right now with a total overall savings of $600.
176602
Its nice to have the extra 20mm for low light applications. Cost is a factor though, depends on what you want to use it for. I think the larger unit is better for a number of different aplications
233940
It looks like the "#883-101" is a newer version for the same model. You may not be able to buy "#880-101". I did a comparison of these two versions and here are differences [values for #883-101], (values for #880-101): 1. Angle View: [69.3 - 5.7], (76.5 - 6.5) 2. Minimum Focus Distance: [13.8" (35.05 cm)], (1.48' (45 cm)) 3. Elements/Groups: [13/16], (18/14) 4. Filter Thread: [62 mm], (72 mm) 5. Dimensions (DxL): [Approx. 2.9x3.5" (7.37x8.89 cm)], (Approx. 3.1x4.0" (7.87x10.16 cm)) 6. Weight: [1.04 lb. (470g)], (1.39 lb. (630g)) - Most of other features are the same. I hope this will be helpful.
1357020
Filter size is 95 mm. B & W has both UV & Polarizier @ Amazon. Also Lowepro cases 13 x 32 cm fits the lens intact with foot.
398336
I would say a mirrored or polarized lens would be best. Aquasphere have come out with new options for mirrored and polarized. Let us know if you have more questions.
1449655
Why the heck is it so hard to find filters for the SS-700?! I also bought the wrong ones, they all look the same but size is just a bit off. Did you ever figure out what filter number fits the 700? Thanks!
1894735
According to the Carry Speed webite, they sell only circular polarizers in two sizes. I do not know of any other magnetic filters.
1937202
Clear filter, 007M, is the prefered choice and priced higher. UV coating can slightly distort coloring and its benefits are debatable.
199869
I replaced by disposable paper filter with the K &N; and immediately noticed the difference in "snottiness". Do not listen to the polaris dealers when they tell you that it voids a warranty, because it allows too much dust past. This is a mear sales pitch of theirs. Think about this your paper element gets muddy or soaked with water its now trash. With a K&N; you can clean time and time again. Would you rather throw money away or add some power plus a cleanable reusable filter. I would go with the K&N; anytime, for any application.