170-500 Sigma - Filter or Hood ? (1 Viewer)

nickb · May 12, 2006

Hi all,

Just finally spent the money and bought a 170-500 Sigma lens for my 350D following loads of good advice on here. Jessops still have a handful of the older non DG version at £439.

I was thinking of getting a filter but they didn't have one and apparently cost around £50. The lens comes with a hood as standard. Would it be necessary to use a filter to protect lens or do you use the hood permanently ?

Of course with the hood fitted in no longer fits my Lowepro micro trekker ! (just fits nicely without hood).

Will be out Sunday for first test....

Thanks in advance
Nick

baillieswells · May 12, 2006

nickb said:
Hi all,

Just finally spent the money and bought a 170-500 Sigma lens for my 350D following loads of good advice on here. Jessops still have a handful of the older non DG version at £439.

I was thinking of getting a filter but they didn't have one and apparently cost around £50. The lens comes with a hood as standard. Would it be necessary to use a filter to protect lens or do you use the hood permanently ?

Of course with the hood fitted in no longer fits my Lowepro micro trekker ! (just fits nicely without hood).

Will be out Sunday for first test....

Thanks in advance
Nick

I fix UV filters on all my lenses including my Sigma 170-500mm lens. The best value I could find was Sigma's own multicoated filter which I got from the Bristol Camera Co. (I don't know whether Sigma manufacture the filters themselves, or get them from another manufacturer).On all my other lenses I use German made B&W filters. According to my optical physicist friends high grade UV filters do not degrade the image, its a myth. I use the filters purely for protection. I would rather scratch a filter than the front element of a lens. I keep my Sigma 170-500mm in the case which came with it, where it only fits with the lens hood reversed.

postcardcv · May 12, 2006

I never used a filter on my 170-500, when in use I always had the hood on, in eth bag I reversed the hood and put the lens cap on.

I recommend reading this recent thread on world photo forum that discusses the potential problems with filters... http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/showthread.php?t=912

Best advice is if you do go for a filter try it on in the shop and check you're happy with the results before you part with your cash.

SMC2002 · May 12, 2006

I agree with Pete and followed the same procedure with my 50-500 Sigma. No filters, but lenshood attached as soon as the lenscap was removed. For storage, lenscap on as soon as the hood was removed. Then reversed the hood and screwed it on.

Just too many potential issues for me. I have enough of my own obstacles to overcome, without having to worry about a UV filter causing flare or loss of detail ;-)

Steve

Keith Reeder · May 14, 2006

Yeah, another vote here for not using a filter - aside from anything else mentioned here, why throw away light gathering ability on a lens which isn't that fast to start with?

"Myth" or not (obviously not myth, because it's happened!) there have been a few threads on here about aberrations in pictures (striping, haloes etc) which have been traced back to the use of a filter.

I started such a thread myself. The problem I had vanished as soon as I took the filter (a good UV filter) off.

Some time later, another forum member - Cashie - started a thread about an almost identical problem to mine.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=48419&highlight=filter

Guess what? He took his UV filter off, and the problem stopped.

So as far as I'm concerned, unless you have a specific use for a filter, they're a bit of a liability. The lens hood provides ample protection for the front lens element.

macshark · May 15, 2006

Regardless of whether you choose to use a filter or not, you really should be using the lens hood at all times. It does improve the contrast quite a bit.

baillieswells · May 15, 2006

postcardcv said:
I never used a filter on my 170-500, when in use I always had the hood on, in eth bag I reversed the hood and put the lens cap on.

I recommend reading this recent thread on world photo forum that discusses the potential problems with filters... http://www.worldphotographyforum.com/showthread.php?t=912

Best advice is if you do go for a filter try it on in the shop and check you're happy with the results before you part with your cash.

Having read the worldphotography forum on filters and seen the illustrations I became quite alarmed, as this went against all my own information. I therefore decided to carry out some simple tests using a multicoloured card with lettering and a bar code as a test object. I used my Canon 350D set at ISO 100. A Velbon Sherpa PRO CF-630 tripod with Manfrotto 701RC2 head.
I tested two lenses, a Canon 70mm-200mm f4 L lens (which I consider the best lens I currently possess) fitted with a B&W multicoated filter and a Sigma 170mm-500mm DG lens fitted with a Sigma multicoated filter. The photos were taken at full aperture and at 200mm and 500mm respectively. The camera and lens was positioned indoors pointing through an open doorway with the object card placed on a table in the garden, lit by an overcast sky.

I could find absolutely NO difference in the resolution or contrast or any other aberrations whether the filters were in place or not. The only difference I did pick up, was if I took the camera into the garden so that the light was above the camera. Under this situation the image in the absence of the lens hood was not as good as with it (Sigma lens), and more so with the filter on. In the presence of the lens hood, I could not differentiate between the shots taken with and without the filter.

nickb · May 15, 2006

Thanks a lot guys for all the great advice.

I think I'll stick with the hood and not get a filter on the balance of all the info.

I still cant beleive how big and heavy this lens is compared to my old 70-300. It seems to focus really quickly though which I'm impressed with. Only got out once so far.

Thanks
Nick

baillieswells said:
Having read the worldphotography forum on filters and seen the illustrations I became quite alarmed, as this went against all my own information. I therefore decided to carry out some simple tests using a multicoloured card with lettering and a bar code as a test object. I used my Canon 350D set at ISO 100. A Velbon Sherpa PRO CF-630 tripod with Manfrotto 701RC2 head.
I tested two lenses, a Canon 70mm-200mm f4 L lens (which I consider the best lens I currently possess) fitted with a B&W multicoated filter and a Sigma 170mm-500mm DG lens fitted with a Sigma multicoated filter. The photos were taken at full aperture and at 200mm and 500mm respectively. The camera and lens was positioned indoors pointing through an open doorway with the object card placed on a table in the garden, lit by an overcast sky.

I could find absolutely NO difference in the resolution or contrast or any other aberrations whether the filters were in place or not. The only difference I did pick up, was if I took the camera into the garden so that the light was above the camera. Under this situation the image in the absence of the lens hood was not as good as with it (Sigma lens), and more so with the filter on. In the presence of the lens hood, I could not differentiate between the shots taken with and without the filter.

170-500 Sigma - Filter or Hood ? (1 Viewer)

More options

nickb

Active member

baillieswells

Well-known member

postcardcv

Super Moderator

SMC2002

Well-known member

Keith Reeder

Watch the birdie...

macshark

Electron Chaser

baillieswells

Well-known member

nickb

Active member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread