Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
77mm Filter  
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 474 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

I'm looking for a good filter in the ~$100~ range for a 100-400.

Can you gentlemen pls suggest something?

I'd like it to primarily provide Contrasty Photos & Protect the front element.

Thanks - Vishal

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1753 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What KIND of filter, vish?

If you're looking for a polarizer the Marumi super multicoated are good and shouldn't break the bank.

I wouldn't bother with a UV/protector filter unless you're going to be in seaspray/windy desert environments.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Vishal,

Seriously, a skylight/UV filter will significanty degrade the quality of your images beyond 300mm. I went to MAN to test my second 100-400 (wasn't happy with the first) and didn't bother with a filter. Results were stunning, however when I went a few days later with a filter attached the results were much poorer. I couldn't understand why as the light and general conditions (including time of day) were the same. Taking a long shot I removed the filter for my next trip, and again the results were perfect.

The filter to be fair won't have much of an effect at the shorter end, but since most 100-400 shooters tend to like the longer end it is a real snag!

Just do what I do - take VERY good care of the lens and always replace the cap when not in use.

Karl


User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Vish, there's pros and cons for using them but I personally don't bother anymore. Granted, they will protect the foremost lens but then again, so would shooting behind a window....
Spence.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4863 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The only time I use a filter is if I'm looking for specific results that they provide...for example, neautral density or polarizing filters. I never use a filter for the sole purpose of protecting the front element. I do that by replacing the cap between shots and keeping the lens hood attached. I recall someone here saying, why spend $$$$ on expensive glass to throw a piece of cheap glass in front of it?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

The above are probably right. But I do always use a filter on my 11-16 and my 70-200 and I just buy the cheap UV ones in the $35.99 range! Often I'm in and out of a car with the lenses, and don't want to anything through the lens!


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Ron,

I too use filters on my shorter lenses (24-105, 70-200), without noticeable detriment to the images. It just seems to be a massive issue on the 100-400, which given its coverage isn't too surprising.

Karl


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3373 times:

I don't use filters as a protection unless I'm exposing the camera to salt spray or other harsh environments - but I do always use lens hoods.

So far I don't recall ever permanently marking a lens element in 30+ years - but perhaps I've been lucky.

You mention more contrasty images. Well a polarizer will work in SOME situations, but UV filters won't help in digital. UV filters were popular with film users, as film had some sensitivity to UV light which could cause bluish haze. As digital sensors are not sensitive to UV, such filters don't help.

In fact, filters may reduce contrast - esp. cheap ones. Modern quality lenses have sophisticated and expensive coatings designed to reduce flare, optimise contrast and ensure colour accuracy. Attaching a filter adds another reflective surface, which if not coated to the same high spec, will undo much of the work of the origional lens coatings.

Note that flare is not always obvious as a shape on the image - it can simply take the form of reduced contrast which you may not notice unless compared with an unfiltered image.

Anyway, if you do think you need a filter for protection, don't skimp - look for top quality multi-coated types.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

I'm not convinced filters add that much protection. Like Colin, I carry a UV filter to keep the lens clean when the air is dirty, etc, but most of the time it's in my bag.

I've heard plenty of stories from people who dropped a lens and were thankful that "the filter was broken but it saved the lens." I think that's just perception. I think the front element, typically recessed from the rim and a fairly substantial piece of glass, usually survives just fine, filter or not. The filter, being a minimal piece of glass on a thin aluminum or bronze rim that distorts easily under impact, simply breaks because it's not that durable.

I almost wonder if we actually shouldn't worry more about shards of a broken filter scratching the front element more than we should a bare front element breaking.

Of course, I see plenty of casual users walking around parks with no lens cap at all. I guess there a filter is better, but the tiniest bit of effort with the lens cap is better.

By the way, I've actually found the Ritz Quantary Pro to be a pretty good filter (I have a UV and a polarizer), for those who can't justify spending more. Rumor is they're made by Hoya and rebranded, although I've found zero authoritative substantiation to that. On my wide angle with some quick tests, I didn't perceive any sharpness loss, and an almost imperceptible color shift. There is some sharpness loss on telephotos, however, so I don't recommend it there.


User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4863 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iamlucky13 (Reply 8):
Of course, I see plenty of casual users walking around parks with no lens cap at all. I guess there a filter is better, but the tiniest bit of effort with the lens cap is better.

I see a lot of this as well, especially from some of my friends. They will have that camera dangling at their side with the strap over the shoulder with no lens cap. I cringe every time I see that. My camera is either around my neck or in my bag. Not set down anywhere, not over my shoulder...either in my bag or around my neck. The only exception is if I need a tripod.

And if I'm not taking a picture, the lens cap is on.

[Edited 2011-01-10 17:35:33]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

Vishal,

I use B+W MRC UV on all my lenses. I never had any IQ issues with them (but I never had a 400mm lens so I don't know how they will affect its quality). The main reason I prefer the B+Ws over other alternatives is because they feel very sturdy and they are very easy to clean. I've also used a Hoya UV on a previous camera and it was a real pain to clean; it streaked badly. The B+Ws are much better in that respect.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 1):
I wouldn't bother with a UV/protector filter unless you're going to be in seaspray/windy desert environments.

There will always be the "use filter" and "do not use filter" camps. I'm in the former. A very good quality filter will affect IQ minimally and it's helpful to protect the expensive optics of the lens. I'm considerably more relaxed cleaning a filter than the lens directly, the latter typically being a non-trivial investment.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 1):
If you're looking for a polarizer the Marumi super multicoated are good and shouldn't break the bank.

I haven't used the Marumi CPL but I do have two Marumi filters. IQ is great. Unfortunately, they feel really fiddly and every time I have to clean the I feel as if they will fall apart in my hand. The B+Ws are leagues ahead in that respect.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4):
I recall someone here saying, why spend $$$$ on expensive glass to throw a piece of cheap glass in front of it?

I agree and I never put cheap glass in front my expensive lenses (the B+W are really not cheap).

Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
look for top quality multi-coated types.

  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9):
They will have that camera dangling at their side with the strap over the shoulder with no lens cap. I cringe every time I see that.

Guilty as charged. I often have my camera on my R-strap without the lens cap on.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 474 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Guys Thank You a lot for your replies, i appreciate then VERY Much Indeed   

Just spent about 5 hour straight achieving my Bachelors Degree in UV vs CPL through the knowledge gained here, FM & Google.

As with most graduates, i'm now a 'little' more lost than when i began my Learning but, i'm glad about the Education!  
Quoting dvincent (Reply 1):
What KIND of filter, vish?

Dan i'm still a little unsure between a UV & a CPL

Quoting dvincent (Reply 1):
If you're looking for a polarizer the Marumi super multicoated are good and shouldn't break the bank.

There seem to be 2 types of Marumi CPL's.
1. Marumi DHG CPL ($51.66) &
2. Marumi Super DHG CPL ($81.11)

I'm guessing the differance between the 2 is perhaps the latter has additional coats/layers or something ¿

Quoting dvincent (Reply 1):
I wouldn't bother with a UV/protector filter unless you're going to be in seaspray/windy desert environments.

Well its very dusty & hazy here in BOM.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 2):
Vishal,

Seriously, a skylight/UV filter will significantly degrade the quality of your images beyond 300mm.

Interesting experience Karl.
Actually, i called Joe Pries in Charlotte a few mins after i posted this thread to ask him abt filters,
he too apparently uses the skylight though he said he isnt too into filters & hasnt seen any great noticeable differences & this following line is what he rounded-off the conv with   

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 2):
Just do what I do - take VERY good care of the lens and always replace the cap when not in use.

@Spencer:      

@Ryan: I figured that i definately dont need ND Filters for now, not for aviation atleast.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4):
I recall someone here saying, why spend $$$$ on expensive glass to throw a piece of cheap glass in front of it?

+1
thats why i dont intend on buying any 'cheap' glass  
Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
I don't use filters as a protection unless I'm exposing the camera
to salt spray or other harsh environments - but I do always use lens hoods.

Colin, due to our perennially hazy & dusty environment here, I'm guessing the lenshood will funnel all the dust on the front element & i do not want to risk scratching or messing it up   

Which is one of the reasons why i want a filter.

Quoting ckw (Reply 7):
You mention more contrasty images. Well a polarizer will work in SOME situations, but UV filters won't help in digital.

As i now understand it there'll be a slight trade-off of F-Stop/Shutter Speed which presumably limits a CPLs usage to certain scenarios only eh?



@imlucky13: Thats quite a scenario you have portrayed in your second paragraph.

I'm already getting nervous about looking-out for the safety/security of all the gear i'm getting.
Dont scare me   

Quoting SNATH (Reply 10):
I'm considerably more relaxed cleaning a filter than the lens directly, the latter typically being a non-trivial investment.

+1

Quoting SNATH (Reply 10):
Guilty as charged. I often have my camera on my R-strap without the lens cap on.


Tony you can do with some insurance for your gear  

SO!
In Laymans,

   UV = wont make too much differance to image quality but if ideal as a non-interfering protection for the front element (as long as its a good quality UV Filter)

   CPL = Blue(r) Skies, Higher Saturation & Contrast (like in music videos), Birds Flying, Celine Dion/Mariah Carey or whover singing melodies in the background eh?   


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

Quoting iamlucky13 (Reply 8):

I'm not convinced filters add that much protection

They do I use the cheap $20 filter on mine when not in use and they saved both my zooms when I dropped them.


User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 11):
@imlucky13: Thats quite a scenario you have portrayed in your second paragraph.

I'm already getting nervous about looking-out for the safety/security of all the gear i'm getting.
Dont scare me

Sorry...that's not what I intended. The point I wanted to make is that the front element is usually fairly thick. It should be able to withstand modest drops even without the filter, and I'm not convinced the filter adds much, if any protection. Stories about a lens surviving when dropped with a filter don't mean it wouldn't have survived without the filter.


But I digress...


I want to try to keep this simple for you. My advice is read this, then get one, both, or neither:


UV Filter - get one if you're worried about physical protection. These should have no effect on contrast for digital (UV light can cause haziness on film, but should not on digital). They're effectively clear to a digital camera. Some people keep a UV filter on their lens for protection all the time. Others, like me, only put one on if we're in a dirty environment.

Circular polarizing filter - get one if you want to reduce glare, and get better image contrast in bright situations. These filter out polarized light, such as bright reflections off of metal or water. They also tend to darken the sky, which can be good on bright days. Because they're more expensive and darken the image (usually takes about 4 times as long of exposure (2 stops) with a filter on versus off), it makes sense to only put this one on when shooting under conditions where you want the polarizing effect.

That's should be all you need to know to figure out if you need any of them.

As for which to buy, that's less obvious. Unfortunately good 77mm filters are not very cheap. They have to be made of very flat glass so they don't soften the image, and that's a large piece of glass to keep perfect. CPL's cost substantially more than UV's.

I mentioned the Quantaray brand. Their professional line is the cheapest I'd personally go. Based on the price, I'm guessing the more expensive Marumi CPL is comparable to the Quantaray Professional. I've tried their ordinary "multicoated" and returned it. The "Professional" was much better in just about every way.

Others won't even touch the Quantaray Professional filters, although I've been satisfied with them.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

CPL = Blue(r) Skies, Higher Saturation & Contrast (like in music videos), Birds Flying, Celine Dion/Mariah Carey or whover singing melodies in the background eh?

Yes. Sometimes. The problem with a CPL is it is only fully effective when the light source is at 90 degrees. Shooting into the sun or with the sun behind you will result in no effect at all (though you still lose a stop). Also the more diffuse the sun, the less the effect.

Furthermore, you must adjust the rotation of the polarizer for best effect when either you or the sun moves position. In practice, with a deep hooded lens this can be quite tricky. If you consider the situation of panning an aircraft from start of takeoff roll to departure, you could find a range of 0 to full effect - and a variation of exposure of 1 -2 stops in the course of the pan!

Final caution - many polarizers are quite thick and can cause vignetting on some lenses. If you do buy one, go for the thin frame versions.

Polarizers can produce dramatic effects (maybe too dramatic for regular use), but also unwanted effects - metallic surfaces can look "odd" in some circumstances - after all, it's reflections in part that make metal look like metal. I've had some great shots with CPLs, but also some crap. My main issue is that for 'general' shooting where you may not have absolute control over position and light, they can be a bit of a liability.

Note that there are some post processing techniques which can improve an image's micro-contrast. Try experimenting with an unsharp mask using a low "Amount" (say 10-15) and a large radius (100+).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1071 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

As Tony said good quality filters have no effect on IQ and any focal length.
I use B+W which provide no degradation in IQ at all and protection for shooting in rain etc.
Highly recommend them for all your lenses.
Peace of mind comes pretty cheap compared to the price of replacing a front element on say a 100-400 or 24-70 which is an integral lens element unlike the super tele's where its only a protective element.
Having used poorer quality filters i will never go back from B+W.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinedvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1753 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Yes. Sometimes. The problem with a CPL is it is only fully effective when the light source is at 90 degrees. Shooting into the sun or with the sun behind you will result in no effect at all (though you still lose a stop). Also the more diffuse the sun, the less the effect.

This is generally true for sky, but for most reflections is not the case. For instance, most glass, foliage or water reflections will be culled no matter what time of day. Plus, polarizers can be quite effective for eliminating glare off certain kinds of asphalt. Unfortunately, some runway markings become... interesting when polarized.

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Furthermore, you must adjust the rotation of the polarizer for best effect when either you or the sun moves position. In practice, with a deep hooded lens this can be quite tricky. If you consider the situation of panning an aircraft from start of takeoff roll to departure, you could find a range of 0 to full effect - and a variation of exposure of 1 -2 stops in the course of the pan!

If only some wise lens manufacturer would include little sliding doors in their deep lens shades to make it easier to adjust polarizers...    Fortunately, thanks to the ISO performance of today's modern cameras, this can be less of an issue thanks to judicious use of auto-ISO. As always, planning is important.

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Final caution - many polarizers are quite thick and can cause vignetting on some lenses. If you do buy one, go for the thin frame versions.

This is generally true only for the widest of lenses. The bigger problem over vignetting is unevenness of the polarizing effect. However, with proper composition (and a bit of luck) you can use this to your advantage. Plus, that mild ND effect can help get you slower speeds for motion blur/prop blur during panning.

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Polarizers can produce dramatic effects (maybe too dramatic for regular use), but also unwanted effects - metallic surfaces can look "odd" in some circumstances - after all, it's reflections in part that make metal look like metal. I've had some great shots with CPLs, but also some crap. My main issue is that for 'general' shooting where you may not have absolute control over position and light, they can be a bit of a liability.

Polarizing can't reduce reflections off metallic surfaces. They're not useful when looking through most sandwiched aircraft glass (e.g. cabin/cockpit windows) and can create some... interesting rainbow effects.

I don't use a polarizer for normal blue-sky shooting, but whenever I walk around the statics at the air shows I generally have it on.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 15):
As Tony said good quality filters have no effect on IQ and any focal length



I respectfully beg to differ. Minimal effect on wide angles and standard zooms, however on something like a 100-400 quality is hit at the longer focal lengths. My 77mm filter is a high-end Hoya so it's not a cheap affair. It currently resides on my 24-105L, upon which degradation is not noticeable.

Karl


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1071 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Hi Karl sorry but Hoya are not hi end filters...i highly recommend you try B+W and see the difference for yourself.
Most people believe spending $30-40 on a filter is expensive and learn the hard way that as you say at 400mm end there is a quality loss.
I used Hoya for many years and having now changed fully to B and W will never go back as there is a major difference in quality. It was in fact a bad CPL from Hpya which prompted me to check all my filters and i found as you have that at longer focal lengths Hoya quality can range from just acceptable to in my instance terrible.
Never again will any filter other than B+W sit on the front end of a lens of mine.

[Edited 2011-01-11 20:09:06]


2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting vishaljo (Reply 11):
Dan i'm still a little unsure between a UV & a CPL

They do two different things. UV you have it on for protection. CPL it's for various effects (darkening blue sky, reducing glare, etc.). As Dan already mentioned, the latter will also reduce the light passing it by around 2 stops give or take.

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
If you do buy one, go for the thin frame versions.

But make sure it has front threads so you can still put the lens cap on.

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 18):
Never again will any filter other than B+W sit on the front end of a lens of mine.

Amen to that, Darren.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 474 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Yes. Sometimes. The problem with a CPL is it is only fully effective when the light source is at 90 degrees. Shooting into the sun or with the sun behind you will result in no effect at all (though you still lose a stop). Also the more diffuse the sun, the less the effect.

Hmmm...   

Quoting dvincent (Reply 16):
I don't use a polarizer for normal blue-sky shooting, but whenever I walk around the statics at the air shows I generally have it on.

Thats what i may try perhaps.

Get a UV for the Tele-Photo & a 58mm CPL for my 28-105 ¿

Here are 77mm UV Filters on B&H & 58mm CPLs

Can you pls suggest something in the sub $100 range for now?

[Edited 2011-01-11 21:34:26]

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

Polarizing can't reduce reflections off metallic surfaces. They're not useful when looking through most sandwiched aircraft glass (e.g. cabin/cockpit windows) and can create some... interesting rainbow effects.

Whoops - yes that is correct - polarizers don't cut reflections on metal surfaces -pics I was thinking of turned out to be painted  

As to recommendations - well I only used B+W or the Pro range of Hoya filters, which I'm happy with. But which ever you choose, opt for a multi-coated version (this does make a difference), and for the 28-105 I think a thin frame version will be necessary to avoid vignetting.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinevishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 474 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 21):
opt for a multi-coated version (this does make a difference), and for the 28-105 I think a thin frame version will be necessary to avoid vignetting.

For the 28-105, i narrowed-down to this one > Marumi 58mm Super DHG Circular Polarizer $58.65/- Worthy buy ?

As for the 77mm, i'm still unsure which to get - http://www.2filter.com/prices/specials.html

[Edited 2011-01-15 16:02:54]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Filter For Pictures Through Aircraft Window posted Sun Apr 12 2009 12:14:05 by DL767captain
Best Type Of Filter For Av Photography? posted Mon Feb 18 2008 17:44:01 by Atomother
"Clarify" Filter From Paintshop Pro In Photoshop? posted Mon Dec 31 2007 00:21:35 by Jawed
Polarising Filter - Colour Cast posted Wed Aug 22 2007 11:16:50 by McG1967
Canon 100-400mm Is Lens Filter Help posted Wed Jul 4 2007 13:18:22 by Davejwatts
Cokin Filter Set Question posted Wed Apr 18 2007 11:25:39 by Monteycarlos
UV Filter posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:34:22 by Singel09
Do I Need A Filter? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 11:34:04 by LukasMako
When To Use A UV Filter? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 18:44:12 by Cadet57
The Best Filter Brand? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 02:51:03 by WhyWhyZed