|
Canc3r
Jun 2, 2008, 5:20 PM
Post #26 of 34
(2525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 3
|
UV filters are protectors against rays that harm your sensor , it costs 8 $ up to 35 $ and you install it on the lens , it's like a glass and it also protects the lens surface from scrachs and helps you to get sharper images and better quality of image. If your spending money on DSLRs you have to buy a UV Filter
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 2, 2008, 5:24 PM
Post #27 of 34
(2524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Um, how about "no"? Guess the sales guy sold you some UV filters, eh? I never use them. The IQ hit is just to much, unless you buy the really pricey ones, which will just about pay to have the front element replaced, should you damage it.
Canc3r wrote: UV filters are protectors against rays that harm your sensor , it costs 8 $ up to 35 $ and you install it on the lens , it's like a glass and it also protects the lens surface from scrachs and helps you to get sharper images and better quality of image. If your spending money on DSLRs you have to buy a UV Filter |
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Jun 2, 2008, 5:35 PM
Post #28 of 34
(2518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Canc3r wrote: . . . harm your sensor . . .
Canc3r wrote: . . . it costs 8 $ up to 35 $ . . .
Canc3r wrote: . . .protects the lens surface from scrachs (sic) . . .
Canc3r wrote: . . .helps you to get sharper images and better quality of image . . .
Canc3r wrote: If your spending money on DSLRs you have to buy a UV Filter
|
|
|
|
|
Canc3r
Jun 3, 2008, 3:17 AM
Post #29 of 34
(2496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 3
|
oh man , sorry for the wrong info !
|
|
|
|
|
pancaketom
Jun 3, 2008, 3:29 AM
Post #30 of 34
(2492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 391
|
Some people have been saying "450D / Xti", but the 400D is the Xti and the 450D is the Xsi. (I have the 400D and am generally pleased with it). I like the crop with the telephoto end, but hate it with the wide end.
If you like messing with film and darkrooms etc. have at it, otherwise, I would strongly suggest go with a DSLR and take lots more pictures with instant feedback etc.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jun 3, 2008, 3:16 PM
Post #31 of 34
(2462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
LOL at the filter debate. UV filters are great for keeping your 1200+ dollar lens clean & scratch free but not much else IMHO
Just buy the 450D/XSi and get yourself a lens with some decent range.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jun 3, 2008, 4:14 PM
Post #32 of 34
(2457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Why would you spend 1200 on a great lens, only to put a piece of $50.00 glass in front of it? Maybe just buy a cheap lens instead? I buy L lenses because I want to use them at their best. If one gets damaged, I will pay to have it fixed, or have my insurance replace it. I am not gentle with my gear, and I have never had an issue with the front element. The only exception to that is my 16-35 II isn't fully weather sealed without a filter, but planning on buying a $250 circular polarizer for the times I might need it (82mm filters are pricey!)
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jun 4, 2008, 1:15 PM
Post #33 of 34
(2417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
Good point Wes. I guess the trade off (1 more piece of glass on my lens vs. the hassle of replacing or having the lens repaired) is worth it to me. Also, it should be noted, that this lens is for my work camera and I had to fight pretty hard to get the money for it so I'd rather not have to pay more in case i bump it against something. For the record, I don't have a UV filter on any of my personal lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Jun 11, 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #34 of 34
(2266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
I admit I still use UV filters, even though the only scratch I ever got on a lens was from the time I bumped my lens against a tripod leg and the UV filter broke...and scratched the lens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
