Are these mostly for film cameras and not digital, if I'm using mostly for protection, would not the cheaper Tiffens suffice, whats the difference?
211094
In general a color conversion (warm or cooling) filter is just that regardless of camera or lens it is placed in front of. I sometimes use it when taking shots of sunsets/sunrises with my D7000. If you want a lens strictly for protection then get the best quality crystal clear lens possible-no distortion or color shift at all. If you are relatively careful a protection lens will not be necessary. Remember you will need one for each size diameter lens you own unless you buy step up/down rings. Most actual lenses are recessed (not all) so scratching it rare.
159813
T2i isn't dustproof either... If your worried about serious amounts of dust, you should buy L lenses and a XXD or XD frame (e.g. 30D frame, 5D frame, etc). If you can't afford a weather resistant frame, you probably shouldn't worry about getting weather resistant glass...
1536569
Thank you so much for explaining the difference. I have used a 35 mm Pentax for years. And I have a small digital that I use now for quick shots. But I wanted to move up to something that would give me a good combination of options. So the dSLR cameras are all new to me.
2072346
It was designed for film, but works perfectly fine for a digital slr. I used it for quite a few years on both film and then on a 30D. The focal length is affected slightly, but that's about it. I'm sure somebody with a really sharp eye could point out differences, but I certainly couldn't detect anything.
721659
NC filter protects your more expensive camera lens from damaging dust, scratches, flying debris. Much cheaper to buy another NC filter than have to replace $$ lens.
270526
Good question, and a controversial topic. Lots of discussion on various forums. For imaging, no, it isn't needed. For protection, maybe. I use filters to protect my lenses. They're cheaper to replace. Or, they would be, but I've never damaged a filter, much less a lens. I still use them, and have since my old 35 mm film days (that's 35 years of not damaging the end of a lens, including a couple of Himalayan treks). The hood also protects the glass, and many consider that adequate. I just can't get past the relative cost to replace should my clumsiness finally break through, so to speak.
1530822
I don't miss the IS. Uses are pretty much any time you have to slow shutter speed to the point that camera shake is evident. I shoot portraits without IS and I'm very happy. Maybe I have a steady hand but more likely I have adequate settings and lighting. If you don't do any flash photography, or plan to shoot frequently in mostly dimly lit areas, perhaps you will need the IS. Personally, I'm glad I saved the money. I know nothing of the 2x extenders.
462698
In general, the lens will make a much bigger difference in the quality of your photos than the camera body. So, if money is an issue, its always better to go for the cheaper body and spend the money you saved on better lenses.
1749904
We use them for video production and still photography. For the price they are great. I guess the size would depend on what the subject is, or how many subjects there are. I have yet to encounter an issue where we needed something larger, but every project and shoot is different. Hope this helps.
1010451
A high quality filter should not degrade the image quality in any noticeable way. There are multi-coated filters available optimized for lens protection, and if these are not easy to find then a UV filter will work fine. I agree with the previous answer that protecting the front element of the lens is a very most important thing, unless all your work is in a clean dry studio with the camera on a tripod.
465377
Film was sensitive to UV and UV filters were commonly used years ago to keep sky shots from being washed out; ie to keep them more blue. Todays digital cameras aren't sensitive to UV so the filter isn't needed. Some people use them to protect the lens from scratches but a scratch on the filter isn't good for you either, but a filter is cheaper to replace. If you are careful with your lens, the filter can be omitted. In 40 years, I've never damaged a lens. Cheap UV filters scratch very easily and also may change your color a little or cause some distortion. A good UV filter like this one has no effect on the photo and is more scratch resistant. You can get reflections from bright point light sources from most added filters which show up in your picture as ghost images, especially when a low F stop is used. Use a good UV filter if it makes you feel more comfortable cleaning it verses cleaning the lens. It shouldn't effect most of your pictures. If there are going to be point sources of light in your picture, remove the filter for that photo.
1284176
I wish I could help but I bought these filters for a friend as a gift, I know virtually nothing about cameras. I am sorry, I hope someone else can answer for you.
2274621
I use it for photos as well. I've noticed no difference, other than the great price.
1825320
My suggestion would be to get the Tiffen filters. I would not suggest these as I did not get good results overall. One problem is that these are not glass. A lot of color cast. Which means you have to correct it later. Get the Tiffen filters. Or you spend a nice chunk of change on some Lee Filters which look like these filters.
1643199
Yeah you can be they don't work as well as a Nikon lens. The cheapest Nikon lens will work better because it will be able to communicate with the camera.
1177557
Probably. They are generic cards for Nikon digital SLR's. They dealin with settings that are best for different types of photography.
646577
In days past Tiffen was a good quality middle of the road (cost) filter. They've cheaped them up to point I wouldn't own one. Hoya is a similar filter. The best filter's I've used over last 45 years are by B + W.