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? This would be used primarily with my everyday (mid-range) lens (90% of my shots) which is a Canon 24-105mm. I assume the SLIM version is important for wide-angle lenses, but not sure if it makes a difference for my mid-range lens. 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? This would be used... » Read More 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? This would be used primarily with my everyday (mid-range) lens (90% of my shots) which is a Canon 24-105mm. I assume the SLIM version is important for wide-angle lenses, but not sure if it makes a difference for my mid-range lens. « Show Less
219267
I have the slim and find it more difficult to work with because it is smaller and you cannot use your regular lens cap . . . the included lens cap simply slips on and . . . so . . . easily falls off.
219268
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. 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... » Read More 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. « Show Less
537013
TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the... » Read More TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. « Show Less
646576
I am a professional photographer and I use the Tiffen polarizer and it works great. My advice to you is while you are learning get the Tiffen polarizer because at the end of the day either one cant promise a great shot thats on you. But I have used the product and it is a big difference when I don't use one.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
1382944
I think as long as the thread is 77mn it should work, I use it with a cannon 24-105 and it has become my favorite filter, but I cannot assure you it will work the same with your lens, I have a bunch of lee filters but none of them has the same strength in stopping light as the B&W;, the camera reading of how to set the shutter speed is always wrong but I have learnt that I have to shoot at a much longer exposure than what the camera is telling me, keep that in mind if you decide to try it. I absolutely love it! BTW what negative effect do you get with the polarizer?
1414142
Hi,Seems to match.in some extremely wide angle lenses ultra thin filter is used, as far as I know it is not required for 24 mm.I use it on canon 18-200 (cropped sensor).Thanks.Guy
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1674275
Congratulation on the purchase of your SX50. What an amazing gem of a camera! It seems you have solved the problem. I'm pleased that you were dealing with Gojo... A great company that always takes care of their customers. Now, you should consider getting a polarizing filter and a lens shade. If you are doing any landscapes or seascapes you will find that the polarizing filter is the most valuable tool in your bag. When you get a lens shade I strongly suggest getting the soft collapsible rubber shade. Those hard tulip shades are a waste of money. Your lens on the SX50 goes from 24mm to 1200mm. At the 24mm, wide angle setting, the rubber lens shade will vignette very slightly in the corners when the shade is mounted on one of the filter. Without a filter in place it won't vignette at all. Gojo sells both items. Just make sure you get the collapsible one. I leave my rubber lens shade on all the time. In the collapsed position it gives great added protection to the lens by acting like a rubber bumper. Your 58mm lens cap will snap right into the threads of the shade when the shade is in the collapsed position. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions on the SX50 or related topics. I am a photojournalist and I use this camera for many of my magazine features. Good luck and good shooting! massey_23@msn.com
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
2251696
I am also looking for some supplemental filters for my P80 but unable to find any specs on the internal diameter of the lens that's on it. I have a 37mm polarizing screw-in lens from an older camera and it's just shy of the diameter of the P80. By my measurements the P80 is 38mm ID but I can't find any supplemental filter companies that make a polarizing filter that size aside from Hasselblad at a cost of $300+. If anyone can verify the ID being 38mm and find a source for some filters I would be greatly thankful.
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
91302
I love this lens, but yes... I DO think you should save up for the IS version. I wish I would have. I was just a beginner not knowing what I was purchasing at the time. I am totally kicking myself now. :( Its not terrible, but I think the IS would be much better. In my honest opinion
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
398594
Thanks for your tip. Some sellers (in amazon) do not include "UD" in their description. Should we buy the one with UD lens or without?