[thebutcher]

I'm new to photography and I'm not sure which filters to buy for this lens. I'm really looking to save money by not getting lenses that the effect can be reproduced with software. I've researched enough to pick multi coated filters and I'm looking to buy an UV, CPL, FL, and a ND. Would any of these be a waste of money with this lens and a K10D? Thanks for your help.

[avian]

I asked a question a week or two ago trying to decide which UV filter to get for my 16-50.. that thread might help in that regard https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/42290-protecti...te-lenses.html

I skipped on the UV - which still feels weird to me since all my old lenses had a UV (on the old K1000 film camera).

With the CPL I went B+W. Works great on the 16-50, well worth the money.

With the ND/GND I'm yet to decide, kinda leaning towards a lee holder or cokin z-pro holder with singh-ray ND/GND's or similar. Makes more sense for a GND to be able to adjust the horizon.

Let us know what you get and how it goes.

[heliphoto]

That thread of avian's is a good discussion, and if you want to read more discussion on whether to use protective filters or not, do a search on the forum and you'll find many such threads. Unlike avian, I come down on the protection side of things, and put a Hoya Pro1D UV filter on my *16-50 today when it showed up (woohoo).

[SpecialK]

Here's another filter/no filter thread. Oh, I already posted it in the other thread...

Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

[heliphoto]

Jay, why did you sell yours?... and...

It's here!... and it seems in my initial testing to be a keeper. It's a tiny-touch soft/ghosty at f/2.8 (see below), but I don't think it's significantly worse than the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC I'm covering the range with right now, and flare is spectacularly well controlled. Sorry no brick walls or newspapers...

Flare control: the sun is in this picture (some quick and dirty post work done in Lr on this one - also, if you meet my mom, don't tell here I posted her photo )...

exif

Now, f/2.8 performance 1st. the photo, then a 100% crop. Shot RAW on K20D, converted in Lr with default sharpening (which is always softer than in camera defaults from what I've seen)

exif



exif



exif



exif



exif

And now, just 'cause I like pictures of my son... one at f/8...


EDIT: Oh, yeah, forgot to mention... Full size pixel peeping is available here.

[jsherman999]

Josh, judging by those shots, I'd say that's a keeper - very good for wide open, no sharpening. I really like the fine hair & eyebrow detail and skin details on the last shot - very much like my 16-50.

Unless you see something in later brick wall tests like bad decentering, that lens is performing perfectly to spec, congrats!

I sold mine because 1) my 12-24 was getting most of the WA action anyway, and 2) I dropped my K20D + Tammy in a lake and wanted to fund replacements vs. hit the plastic. Forced myself to sacrifice for stupidity

[heliphoto]

Thanks Jay. It's good to hear from a former (at least for now) owner that it looks good to you. I knew you sold your copy, but I didn't put the timing together with the dunkie incident.

The very last shot is at f/8, so not too comparable to the others, but it does look good though doesn't it?

I performed the decentering test described here, although I did it from memory and quick and dirty, so for I didn't do a very scientific version (it was hand held and at f/2.8 being the main deviations), but, although minor differences were noticable between the corners, they were insignificant in my judgement (all corners were ugly at f/2.8 ). I'll probably do a better job before 30 days are up (Amazon's return window), but I'm feeling pretty good about my purchase.

Now I just need some stormy weather and I'm heading to Yosemite ...

[dugrant153]

Congrats on the lens!! I'm still debating on keeping mine, but my copy still puts out really decent photos, although a tad soft at F2.8 .... Hit F4, though, and it's the bomb.

[jct us101]

Way to go on your huge spend!

[dazman]

Lens looks like a keeper Josh. Don't over do the testing...trust your eyes and the results from your everyday images. I joined the party & purchased the same DA* for myself yesterday. Only taken 30 photos, so far & are very impressed with this lens.

[avian]

Great work Josh, glad you got a good one first go. I absolutely love mine, cant see myself selling it any time in the near or distant future.

Seeing how many people have recently got a good one first go, makes ya wonder if production is improving.

[dazman]

Seeing how many people have recently got a good one first go, makes ya wonder if production is improving.

Let's hope so.

[Ratmagiclady]

Personally, I'm of the school that UV's are unnecessary unless the need is conspicuous, (or maybe the lens is just that precious.) When I get them, I don't skimp, though: I have a pile of 'abuseables' that have accumulated over the years just for occasions when conditions are that crappy or I want to smear Vaseline on something for soft focus or whatever, ...otherwise I want them to be at least as good as the lens they're on.

This being from someone, mind you, that's mildly lens-hood obsessed: lenses that can take deep hoods are generally protected enough. If there's something with a big front element, especially a wide that needs a short hood, UV's make a lot more sense. These types of lenses are much more vulnerable, and also a pain to clean on occasions when you'd rather just remove the offensively-dirty filter and shoot on.

And if I actually have occasion to want to cut haze as much as possible, there's usually one to borrow somewhere in the bag.

[wtlwdwgn]

Very good comments all. I have the Hoya clear protection filter also but I've gone to Hoya's Skylight 1B. I find my images are a bit cold and the 1B warms them up slightly.

[rvannatta]

Very good comments all. I have the Hoya clear protection filter also but I've gone to Hoya's Skylight 1B. I find my images are a bit cold and the 1B warms them up slightly.

I'm using a "77 mm Hoya skylight" No number in included on the labeling.

I would deem use of some protective filter critical on the DA*16-50, as it has a very large element very close to the front of the barrell and is a very expensive lens.

I'm less likely to use a protective filter on lenses less expensive or with deeply recessed front elements.