>
> >As to filters: I guess you are not thinking of macro then? The
100
> >has a nicely recessed front element that all but does away with the
> >need for additional shading. Stick a "protect filter" on the end
and
> >you lose that advantage *or* lose working distance with a lens
hood.
>
>
> Huh? Did I miss something? I sometimes use filters when taking
macro
> shots (81 series). Compatible filter size is an important
consideration
> when traveling light.
The only filter *I* ever use on that lens is the polariser. That
means I'm not shooting contre jour btw. When is on the front I use a
supplementary rubber hood (1 dollar at a camera fair) to keep side
light off the glass.
This is all IMO of course: without a protect filter the lens always
gives me flare free shots - easily. In that sense it is the crispest
lens in my range (far out-stripping the 180mm). YMMV but that is
your story not really an argument with mine. I would love to hear
about your filter selection criteria and how you shade them ? For my
uses (mostly bugs) I try to keep working distance high. For some the
100 is too short anyway.
> Compatible filter size is an important consideration
> when traveling light.
52 - 58mm step-up ring cost no more than a few dollars new:
50-cents-equivalent at a UK camera fair. They work and weigh very
small fractions of an ounce ;o)
Step-UPs work fine for a 100mm lens. It's step-downs that are seldom
effective.
Bob
PS: I really am only talking from my own experience. Whether that
achieves anything is for others to judge based solely on the work.
http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/insects/
http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/tempery/vomitty-fly.jpg
http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/tempery/fly_head.jpg
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
