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.
237466
I am not familiar with the Nikon D80 but I will relate to you my experience. I have not used this filter on a Digital camera yet. I have shot lots of B/W IR with film. I used ASA 50 with the focus slightly off as IR is not the same wavelength as what we see. I have shot only B/W on weathered buildings/structures. The results is usually what I am looking for. Now, with digital I just purchases a filter but will not have a chance to use it until late this month in Wyoming and Montana (ghost towns). Bottom line is if you are shooting B/W, set your ASA to 50 and slightly out of focus. I have no experience with color. You may have to do a little experimenting to get what you want. If you want I can send you some of my photos after I get back from my trip. You might also try using a red filter.
360911
No they are for canon only. They do have a version for Nikon available through amazon as well.
2194984
It's a bit smudgy. I use it now to protect old lenses that I don't use much. B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, are all good filters that I currently use and I haven't had any problems with. I advise paying the extra few bucks for the better filters that will last longer.
790510
Dust is an issue if you plan to change lense often. I have a XTi, despite the dust cleaning system I don't plan to remove the lens much. Dust is a real problem for digital as the camera back never gets replaced unlike film. Also, D80 is $200 more than XTi. Nikon lenses are usually more expensive. Quality wise, i think, they are fairly equivalent. Your skills will probably make more difference than the equipment.
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.
485483
Yes it does. I would never consider using a non-multi-coated filter on a digital camera. The reason is simple. The sensor has a flat glass protecting it (called a low-pass filter - LPF). Some light will bounce off the LPF and head out the lens. Since lens elements are multi-coated and curved, very little light will reflect back to the sensor. But since the front filter IS flat, you can get a lot of light bouncing back. If you use a non-coated, or single-coated filter, you get a lot of light reflected back into the sensor. This shows up as a loss of contrast (veiling flair) or as ghosts and hot spots. Multi-coated filters are designed to reduce this effect, but cannot eliminate it. This is a real problem when you shoot into a light source. When shooing into a light, ANY filter will degrade the image. Multi-coated filters are much better, though.
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.
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.
1555733
HOYA or B&W. It's good to have some ND filters (reduce the amount of light to prevent blown out highlights and to be able to shoot at widest aperture while shooting during bright daytime) or circular polarizer (cut down the reflection/ and some light). UV filter is good only to protect the lens, in my opinion.
1010452
It depends upon what you want. I use polarizing filters and a few other. If you purchase i good quality such as B&W; they will not affect your quality. I use a filter to protect my lens especially in dust or sand. You Don't need to have a filter on all the time
657268
Definitively! They are pretty strong. Ideally you'd want another light from the top, but for a no budget film these are actually very fancy ;-) I use them to shoot against green screen and they work great! They're just a bit clumsy, so make sure you set them up well and be careful if you need to move them. For the price you really can't do better.
2085455
I bought four of the same type. Not sure that it really matters much if you are setting the white balance of your camera before shooting. That should compensate for differences in light spectrum.
270527
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. 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... » Read More 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. « Show Less
535931
There's also a 35mm f/2 from Canon, which can be had for around $230. But one thing to remember about the Canon non-L primes is that the back lens usually isn't coated for digital. Digital sensors are a lot more reflective than film, so unless your optics are properly coated exposures with bright light sources in the frame can receive nasty green "ghosts." This can really ruin an image. Sigma's DC lenses seem to be coated properly. Furthermore, the 35mm is just a little bit too "long" to be a normal lens. One of the great things about shooting normal is you can open both your eyes and see pretty much the same scene. You can't do that with a 35, your camera eye is too close. Finally, realize that the smaller sensor on a digital means your need a wider aperture to acheive the same depth of field effects as a full frame camera. This is the only lens under $800 that approximates the abilities of a 50mm f/1.8 on a film camera.
1177557
Probably. They are generic cards for Nikon digital SLR's. They dealin with settings that are best for different types of photography.
1571075
I will answer as soon as possible. I am still waiting for my filters and adapters and LCD covers before I take my camera anywhere to take any photos. I just want to be safe. I scratched the lens and LCD on my last camera when I fell down, so I am trying to be extra careful. I will keep this email so I can remember to answer your question. Have you tried manual though? Going to the highest ISO would probably help with that.