| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/01/2005 10:56:03 AM · #1 |
As a recent purchaser of the 17-40L, I have been astonished at the price of filters which fit this lens. A 77mm IR filter for $283?!? You can get lenses for less than that? What gives? I know the surface area of a circle goes up as a square of the radius, but the cynical side of me figures the filter companies know 77mm equals "L" lens and price accordingly.
What do you think?
I'm interested in a few filters to start:
polarizer
neutral density (2-3 stop)
intra-red (not as necessary)
Anybody have any reasonable suggestions for me? |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 10:57:26 AM · #2 |
yeah its outrageous for the price of 77mm filters, i have the 24-70 and the 70-200 and they both take 77mm but still its way to much money
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:08:40 AM · #3 |
| Hey doc how do you like your 17-40? I was actually thinking of getting that one or the 24-70 since its a bit faster. The price difference is what is telling me to go toward the 17-40. Does it take pretty sharp pics? |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:11:28 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by cesarpz:
Hey doc how do you like your 17-40? I was actually thinking of getting that one or the 24-70 since its a bit faster. The price difference is what is telling me to go toward the 17-40. Does it take pretty sharp pics? |
its an excelent lens! 
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:12:42 AM · #5 |
if i were to get a wide angle lens it would be the 16-35 simply because of the 2.8, and its 1mm wider
not like it maters on a 1.6 camera though
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:13:39 AM · #6 |
| You might want to try the Cokin system, then you only buy the filter once. However, the P series begins to have trouble on really wide angle with large diameter lenses. I have trouble with my 12-24mm at the 12 and 13 range so I'm thinking of switching to the pro series. |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:19:59 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
if i were to get a wide angle lens it would be the 16-35 simply because of the 2.8, and its 1mm wider
not like it maters on a 1.6 camera though |
I would but its 1400 bucks ( oh bhphoto.) Thats getting a little bit deeper in my pocket. So far i have 600 bucks I still have to come up with the rest. |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:26:23 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by cesarpz:
Hey doc how do you like your 17-40? I was actually thinking of getting that one or the 24-70 since its a bit faster. The price difference is what is telling me to go toward the 17-40. Does it take pretty sharp pics? |
I have never heard someone complain about the 17-40L. When you figure many L-lenses are multiple thousands of dollars, it seems to be more reasonably priced. I use it as a walk-around lens, but it also works as a mini-macro (until I make my next purchase which will be a 100mm macro). |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:30:57 AM · #9 |
I got my Hoya R72 77mm new from this ebay auction for $135.00. It Shipped from Hong Kong and I got it in a week.
Message edited by author 2005-08-01 11:32:59.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:36:51 AM · #10 |
| Thanks for the site, that's a better price. Does anybody know of a good IR "filter" on Photoshop? I hadn't looked that route and don't know if anything in the virtual realm comes close to shooting with a real filter. |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 11:53:41 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for the site, that's a better price. Does anybody know of a good IR "filter" on Photoshop? I hadn't looked that route and don't know if anything in the virtual realm comes close to shooting with a real filter. |
Check out this thread it covers your question.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/26/2025 04:38:02 PM EDT.
