Which cam/lens for flowers? LM,Tan, ed, Handy?

[udaman]

Alright, which photo forums would you think I should ask this question.

I want to photograph my mothers flowers in her greenhouse and some outdoor cymbidium orchids. Thing is that most of them have multiple flowers on either one or more flower stalks. I want to get razor sharp images of the entire flower stalks not just one or two to the flowers in a plane in focus.

Reading up on Macro lens of any focal length, they all get soft on detail when ou stop down to anything more than f8 or f16, so they don't give you much in the way of DOF.

So how would you get all of those flowers in sharp focus?

One could just use a normal to wide angle lens, and shot from a decent distance from the flowers to get all of them in perfect focus, while they would not fill up much of the frame if you have a sharp lens and lotsa MP (this is where all those photog sites get it wrong IMO, you can use high MP if that resolution is really there with clean output) where you can just crop out of the frame all the excess you don't need. In essence you're doing something like a digital zoom if you crop to get a reasonalbly large full screen/print size image of the flowers.

Other ways to do this? Would you gain anything by using a short telephoto lens over a wide angle lens?

Damn, I'm tired and can't think strait right now, anyone have ideas?

I guess I could post up some examples of shots I've done with the POS pocket sized PnS Olympus Z50 digicam I sorely want to replace for something that will do *much* better in this regard (if only a pocket sized digicam could do this...probably too much to ask, dSLR is the way to go I know, but I'd rather not spend the money right now, I'd rather have something that will fit into my pocket.

Suggestions, and how to find out these answers?

TIA

OT (well it's my thread so you'd expect me to go immediately off topic wouldn't you ), comments on this photo taken with a Canon 20D, using I guess the kit lens that came with that (Handy has one of these yes?).

I went to this restaurant after the 6hr long 145+ Pinot Noir wines I tasted @ Fort Mason SF (more than 400 wines were being poured but only someone on crystal meth would have been able to taste & spit more than even half of all of those wines), last July 1st.

I know the Canon 20D doesn't have image stablization, but even with poor lighting, you'd think our debutante Sammy could have taken a sharper picture of the menu (which btw cost $285 per person per dinner for this two nights only event + additional $185 if you wanted to have the so-so wines picked by the restaurant to go with this so-called Michelin 3-star meal), yes?

http://becksposhnosh.blogspot.com/2007/03/alain-passard-of-larpge-at-manresa.html#comments

 

[LunarMist]

You have a few options, primarily use a Tilt lens (Canon currently makes 24/45/90 mm TSE, Nikon an 85 mm) or software that merges multiple images to artifically enhance DOF. The latter works best with quite stationary subjects. I'm not at my computer, and therefore have no links.

 

[Handruin]

I don't have the kit lens (18-55mm), I bought the 17-85mm IS to go with my 20D. Though not the worlds greatest, it isn't a kit lens IMHO.

Lately I've been shooting everything with my 50mm prime F/1.4.

I know nothing about tilt lenses, so I don't know if that's what you need; I'd trust LunarMist's suggestion on that one. I'd of said to use a prime lens for the utmost clarity of pictures even if it means using a tripod and some distance between the flower and your camera.

Somewhat on topic, here are a few I took a couple weeks ago at a botanical garden with my 50mm:

 

[ddrueding]

My incredibly limited experience always had me further from a subject to increase DOF.

 

[Tannin]

There is a lot to be said, with this sort of job, for using a tidgy little P&S camera. They give excellent depth of field (because the sensor is so small) and if you are in a greenhouse, the long shutter delay won't worry you - there is no wind to make life difficult.

You can get better results with an SLR, but it is much more difficult. Much much harder. As for using a tilt-shift lens, you are entering into another level of difficulty again.

 

[mubs]

Aah, I was going to ask about wind. Anytime I've tried flowers, wind has always been a real problem for me. Never shot in a greenhouse.

 

[Handruin]

A guy I work with does macro photography and will often times being clips and hooks to keep flowers from moving from the wind. It really is a detail-oriented task to get great flower photos.

 

[Tannin]

Spot on, Doug. It takes ages to do right. Heaps of paitence is an essential part of the job description. You have to work at it.

Udaman: in general you will get best results (if you are using an SLR) at around f/11 to f/16. No SLR lens "gets soft" at f/8; that is where they perform best. What you are probably seeing is camera shake and/or focus errors and/or subject movement. Serous macro protographers use flash so that they can shoot at f/16 or so and still get decent shutter speeds.

 

[paugie]

oops!

 

[Tea]

Great post, Paugie! Would you like to go into a little more detail for us now?

 

[e_dawg]

I like Tannin's suggestion of using a P&S. Some of my favourite flower shots were taken with my Canon A710 while on vacation in France. While the A710 is diffraction limited above f/8, it still gives me ample DOF when using a short to medium focal length.

Sensor size, focal length, and aperture all vary inversely with DOF. If you want to maximize DOF, the wrong place to start is to use a typical mild telephoto macro lens (often in the 70-105 mm focal length range) on an SLR (worse if it's FF!).

The 18-55 kit lens at ~20-25 mm and f/11 would probably give you the best overall compromise of image quality, DOF, and close-focus ability out of your 20D.

With the amount of light and lack of wind coming through most greenhouses, I doubt you would need to resort to tying the flowers down.

 

[udaman]

Thank you all for your replies (paugie ). Well I was way too tired when I wrote the OP. I meant to say short form that going beyond F8 (actually F11 toward F16 you'll start to get into mild diffraction issues e_dawg mentions (at least on lesser performing lenses such as a PnS, correct?).

My problem is that while what ddrueding has suggested in theory should work, it won't work unless you have a superior sensor, great detail/low noise...which doesn't exist on PnS cams..except possibly at lowest ISO (haven't done a search to see which ones excel in that regard).

Since I use a tripod and at present the POS Oly C50Z which has a nifty wireless remote & long exposures & ISO 80, highest quality jpeg (it will capture TIFF images, but they don't seem to be appreciably better than the SHQ jpeg setting); camera shake is not an issue. But resolution,lens & DOF are big issues as can be seen with these examples. Side view, only Macro setting I believe I used...and the only one close enough to show the detail of the throat of the dendrobium flower. Call it the lip of the throat, but you should be able to just make out the sort of fine detail that looks like a bunch of fine sharks teeth on the center of that lip. While you need good eyesight (or reading glasses for us old farts) from a distance of up to a meter, you can see that kind of fine detail as well as other more impressive detail in the flowers. Images below, PS7 'save for web' 'high' quality jpeg compression setting 60, no other PP was done, to keep file sizes @~500k...so some minor loss of detail, but the originals just aren't all that sharp- chalk it up to the lens & the sensor. It's a 5MP, and you can see that it's not a very good 5MP sensor at that. Basically all of the images I captured are not very good-quite 'soft', just no fine detail in any of them

side view closeup macro
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/DimSumYOD/orchids/Macro18.4mmf850th.jpg

side view macro mode? near wide angle.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/DimSumYOD/orchids/8.7mmf850th.jpg

from a meter or so distance, more of the flowers on two different flower (11 total) stalks are 'somewhat' in focus in this shot done at near widest angle (7.8mm F8 1/40th sec exposure), no manual control of focus (or theme focus modes) to speak of on this digicam, so focus is 'pot luck' .

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/DimSumYOD/orchids/7.8mmf840th.jpg


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/DimSumYOD/orchids/10.4mmf840th.jpg

It's very frustrating to not be able to capture on an image what you can see that impresses when you're viewing these flowers in person. Part of the reason people buy them is the fine detail, complex patterns of the structures and colors of these orchid flowers. I won't even get into how the Oly can't render the range of deep pink color (comes out lighter pink) in a phealenopsis my mother has.

I had almost forgotten about reading of tilt/shift PC lens in my youth, thanks LM. But damn, they are expensive---as much as L series lenses, and don't work well on all of Canon's dSLRs

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=51&sort=7&cat=2&page=3

Yes, this is by far the best solution, and exactly what I would like, for taking pictures of flowers when you want to get more than just one flower in focus (think a rose bush).

Nice flower shots with that tilt/shift Canon lens:

http://www.pbase.com/hvr_oosterzele/ts_flowers

Next best (less expensive option) would be a dSLR with WA lens, stopped down enough to get decent DOF. But then would I need a higher MP sensor to get that fine detail once you crop out all of the extraneous parts of the frame?

Notice this 50mm Sigma Macro can stop down to F45 but anything over f16 and the images are going to be somewhat soft (how much is difficult to tell from just a numbers rating and no comparison photos)

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sigma50f28/sigma50f28_jt.htm

But on all of these macro capable lens (the value quality leader Sigma has macro lens from WA 30mm to telephoto 150mm), is not the macro function getting you an extreme close up? Does a macro image taken from the distance you might shoot with a WA lens, have less, more or equivalent DOF for a given F-stop? That's what I want to know. If I got the 50mm Sigma Macro 2.8, in macro mode, is the DOF same as any other 50mm lens? In a greenhouse, could you even use a such a mild telephoto lens, or would you need to go wider than 30mm, could you get close enough, and what would be the effective razor sharp DOF with such a lens when you're close to the subject?

So I'm left with looking for a PnS that does mild wide angle film equivalent of 28mm and hope the DOF at typical max F8 is good enough. The Canon A710is doesn't go wide enough, and I'm not sure that even at lowest ISO there is enough detail (probably the Fuji Super CCD sensor along with that sharper Fuji lens on the F30/31 & soon F50fd series, would take the best pix of any Pns...I would guess). dpreview doesn't take pictures of fine detail of flowers in their tests, so it's impossible to tell if a Canon A710is or Canon SD800is 28mm WA has sufficient detail at lowest ISO setting, as compared to a Fuji Super CCD at same settings).

That or get an inexpensive dSLR and use and even wider angle lens stopped down to f16.

Crap, 100 posts only took a year, at this rate I'll hit 1k about the time Merc hits 20k

 

[e_dawg]

What I see from the images you linked to are several factors reducing the apparent resolution / sharpness of your pics. 5 MP should be more than enough for sharp 2 MP on-screen iso's:

1. Blurring caused by in-camera noise reduction

2. Blurring caused by JPEG smoothing & compression (both in-camera and Photoshop)

3. Way too little USM

4. Slightly soft lens

Unfortunately, you probably can't lower or disable your in-camera NR. Saving to TIFF would reduce the blurring caused by converting to JPEG at that single step, and saving a higher quality JPEG in Photoshop might help (quality = 60? come on man, don't be so cheap! let's go for at least 80-85 here)... but either way, the NR is just too destructive upstream.

I guarantee you can get decent shots out of a P&S. I can show you some nice flower pics I shot from the A710 when I get a chance to PP and upload them.

 

[ddrueding]

That tilt/shift stuff is amazing. I had no idea that was even possible.

http://www.wirtoft.com/foto/TSE90test/img_0477.html

 

[P5-133XL]

Since no one has suggested it in the above discussion, I decided to mention Pinhole camera's. Your main complaint has been DOF and this type of camera always is in focus: no matter what distance and regardless of plane..

Now there are issues with pinhole camera's. The big problem with pinhole cameras are long exposure times because of the limited amount of light that gets through the pinhole. They also tend to be rather low-tech, and extremely cumbersome. Inspite of the disadvantages, they are fun to play with and will solve DOF problems.

Other than the above solution, your choices are limited because all lenses operate using the same DOF rules.

A tilt-shift lens gives you the ability to optimize the viewing plane giving you a better DOF and as a side benefit it also can eliminate some parallax distortion.

You can also go after a smaller focal length lens. This will give you a better DOF range. However, the smaller the focal length, the smaller the background tends to look compared to the foreground. This may or may not produce a better more, interesting photograph. For example, to get a large moon use a super large focal-length while a wide angle will produce a super-small moon. I know this is about flower pictures, so the moon will have nothing to do with your shots, but the same concept will apply. I feel that somewhere between 50-100mm produce the most natural proportions.

The next alternative solution is to move farther away and enlarge/crop the photograph. The further away (for the same focal length), the larger the volume that will remain in focus. Here is where your digital resolution matters: The larger the resolution the more you can enlarge/crop and the further away you can be to get the DOF you need. For digital camera's one does have to start worrying about the quality and fineness of the sensor because a bad sensor can't be enlarged/cropped no matter how many pixels are there. Just like film has physical limititations to it ability to enlarge depending on brand and how it is processed.

Then there is the simple decreasing the aperature. Normally you will not want to go beyond f16-22 because most lens start getting soft at extreme aperatures.

In the end, it really doesn't matter as to the type of lens (other than tilt-shift) because they all operate using the same DOF rules. Macro's allow you to get closer but the DOF shrinks as you get closer. Zooms tend not to be as sharp, as fast, and in general lower quality as primes but they still don't change the DOF basic rules.

You might find, if you camera has the feature, that using the Dep mode to calculate DOF is useful. Otherwise, try Depth of Field Calculator

I really tried to cover alot of ground. Probably too much. It really is a question of the mixture of art and science and there really isn't a perfect answer. Just take a lot of different shots, manipulating all the variables you can, filter out the bad, and learn by experiance.

 

[Tannin]

As Mark more or less says, depth of field has nothing to do with focal length. You can shoot with a 200mm lens from a distance or a 20mm lens up close, and as long as they are both at (e.g.) F/16, the depth of field is exactly the same. For any given sensor, the only factor that counts is aperture.

 

[e_dawg]

As Mark more or less says, depth of field has nothing to do with focal length. You can shoot with a 200mm lens from a distance or a 20mm lens up close, and as long as they are both at (e.g.) F/16, the depth of field is exactly the same. For any given sensor, the only factor that counts is aperture.

Eh? I really don't think that is true. AFAIK (i.e., theoretically), and from personal experience (i.e., experientially), focal length is inversely proportional to DOF. Mind you, I haven't thought about how I feel about it metaphysically, existentially, spiritually, or otherwise, so there is definitely room for error here

 

[Tannin]

Oh, I can assure you it is true, Doggy One. Remember, we are talking about the same magnification - i.e., standing close with a short lens and further away with a long lens, so that the image on film ends up the same size.

Let's say you have a 50mm lens at f/4 and take a picture of Tea such that her fur only just fits in at the top of frame and her toes only just fit into the bottom of frame.

Now take a 200mm lens at f/4 and back off until Tea just fits in the frame again. The two pictures will have exactly the same depth of field.

 

[Tannin]

Some reading for you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html

 

[e_dawg]

Hmm... So I guess we're both half right and we're both half wrong, depending what constraints you use.

Your second link explains that it is NOT always the same DOF. It IS the same when you follow 2 constraints: (1) same image size, and (2) the subjects must be within 1/4 of the hyperfocal distance of the shorter lens.

However, anything farther than 1/4 of the hyperfocal distance, and DOF does indeed vary inversely with focal length.

Am I interpreting that article correctly?

 

[Tannin]

Not so, E_dawg. The same image size "constraint" isn't a constraint at all. Comparing at any size other than same size isn't possible (at least not possible in any meaningful way).

As for the distance constraint, that doesn't apply in the context of flower pictures where we are a lot closer (with any lens) than the hyperfocal distance.

Even more broadly, it shoiuld be a fairly minor factor: it doesn't apply at less than the 1/4 hyperfocal; sneaks in gradually with not much effect at first, and then chops out again as we get to the hyperfocal distance.

But all this is from the theory and the graphs: I'd like to see real shots sjowing how much difference it makes to the eye. If I had a spare weekend, it would be fun to do that. But then, if I had a spare weekend, it would be even more fun to do 17 other things.....

life is too short. sigh

 

[udaman]

Not so, E_dawg. The same image size "constraint" isn't a constraint at all. Comparing at any size other than same size isn't possible (at least not possible in any meaningful way).

As for the distance constraint, that doesn't apply in the context of flower pictures where we are a lot closer (with any lens) than the hyperfocal distance.

Even more broadly, it shoiuld be a fairly minor factor: it doesn't apply at less than the 1/4 hyperfocal; sneaks in gradually with not much effect at first, and then chops out again as we get to the hyperfocal distance.

But all this is from the theory and the graphs: I'd like to see real shots sjowing how much difference it makes to the eye. If I had a spare weekend, it would be fun to do that. But then, if I had a spare weekend, it would be even more fun to do 17 other things.....

life is too short. sigh

I'm still confused, I hate macro shoots because they have infintesimally narrow DOF. Maybe I just don't understand what macro does to a lens that has it, and one that doesn't have it? On portrait lenses for dSLR's, fixed focal lenght as opposed to zooms, they have a macro setting, which allows a larger image size on the sensor than possible with standard setting, how is this accomplished. Or the larger images size is because it allows for closer than standard focusing? Ok, but let us just say I've got one of them 150mm Sigma macro/portrait lenses. This has a much farther close focusing distance, so say you are taking a picture of an lion and don't want to get eaten...umm, scratch that idea. Well just say you're at the closest focusing distance for that telephote 150mm lenses, is the DOF the same at a give distance away as this 150mm in non-macro mode??? For the same image size, is the DOF the same for a given aperature in macro or standard mode on this lens? If it is, then to get more depth of field I need to move the camera farther way from the subject.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

Combining a 90mm focal length and a 1.6' (.5m) minimum focus distance yields a very nice magnification of .29x. Even higher magnification performance can be achieved with the addition of extension tubes. Adding the Canon 12mm Extension tube allows magnification of .43x and adding the Canon 25mm Extension tube allows magnification of .6x.

Yeah, so what does this mean, at .5mm close focus limit- with extension tubes, the image size on the sensor is larger, and is the DOF the same, or less?

See but, but; then there is this discussion of how the 24mm TS canon when used with a 12mm spacer ring, gets you 1:2 ratio ( and I can never figure out without pictures diagrams which number represents what, is that 1/2 size real life?) "macro"...huh? (2nd post on link below)

Then there is this post at the end of this page:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=49&sort=7&cat=2&page=3

saying you *must* use a tripod the poster says, it's a slow lens, difficult to focus (compared to a 4x5 8x10 view cam, lol). Is there an angle viewer magnification eyepiece that fits on any of the lower end Canon dSLR's, I know there is one for the 1 series, but I expect that costs hundreds of $$$?

Here's a picture of it, I wonder if you could do handheld shots with that set up, would be great of taking pictures inside of a restaurant, say Michelin 3-star restaurant and 20 course dinner menu :

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=17612257

For these tests I mounted it on a 1DmkII, a 1.3X crop sensor with RRS L bracket and Angle Finder C at 2.5X to aid in manual focus with a split screen focusing screen (Canon Ec-B). These focusing aids are a tremendous help in focusing as otherwise it is very difficult to discern optimum focus. Here is a picture of it with the camera on a Gitzo Explorer tripod, mounted to get a low perspective view of the deck: 6 degree tilt at 10-11 inches off the deck surface.

Here's a nice perspective of extreme DOF (what looks more normal to your own eyes), and you could instead of pine cones, but taking picture of a field of flowers, or inside a greenhouse get all of the flowers in bloom in sharp focus. (I need a 200dpi monitor, as the small image doesn't look all that sharp to me).

http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pcex.html

28mm Shift Nikon lens modified with bellows to tilt. would be nice if Nikon offered one of these, as the Canon 24mm TS even though an L-series, is not nearly as good a performer as the 90mm version or the 85mm TS Nikon that also has a macro function...if only the canon 28mm was F2.8 and had macro too . 85mm even on a D3 is still no where near wide enough to shoot in close enough range to get GH pix. restricted room sizes, or anything else .

So I'm thinking, Canon makes that 24mm TS lenses, but on anything short of a 1 series Canon body, it doesn't work well- see this last post on this link about the 90mm version:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=51

When they say mirrorbox size causes vignetting, is this reference to the opening of the lens mount, as this should be the only thing (lens mirror flips out of the way when taking a picture) blocking light transmission to the sensor, yes?

. Except the oldest Rebel body, 300d, which had a slightly larger sensor @1.58 crop factor, just mm larger than all the newer 1.6x Canon's like the 20D, 30D, 40D, later Rebels etc. Or does it make that much difference since there is vignetting on all bodies, full frame or not at max shift/tilt?
If I were to go with a 1.6 crop factor, then it would seem from reading some of the post descriptions (Rebel XTi 10MP is not as sharp due to packing smaller pixels on the smaller sensor) a 5D 12MP full-frame has larger pixels so you get a sharper images, that I should get a lower pixel count if I want a sharper image, and don't want to spend on a FF dSLR?

So either I spend $2k on a 5D body to get full 28mm wide angle, or I'm stuck with a Canon 300d and only effective angle of a 38mm lenses . Which means I may as well just get a 28mm or 36mm effective PnS digicam and move back far enough away from my subject and make sure that PnS can stop down to F11 or F16...and save myself and expensive $1k used price of a TS lens and modest upgrade in picture quality of a 300d over a PnS.


Does anyone know how to code in vB or html for doing the roll your mouse over the picture examples like Ken Rockwell uses on his site,


or this one with Bart Simpson on a bookshelf:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

illustrating you that while a tilt lense does change the focal plane, it does not mean and greater DOF for a given aperture (to get the bookshelf metal support bracket in focus, you'd need to either move farther away, or use a higher/smaller aperture, as you are just changing the area that will be in focus in that plane, that a given aperture will capture. Nicer pix of the 90degree angle focusing/magnifying eyepiece attachment. Regarless, I would love to play with one of these lenses (noting that some people had to send examples back to be replaced for one that was sharper, apparently there is poor quality control on these...@$1k a lens, this is in excuseable, they should be fully tested/cert'd before Canon ships them).

Oh see, here is sort of my answer on handheld, or it is not?

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images/tilt_shift_tse/cafe_C_march06.jpg

the image was taken @ISO1250 (presumable with the 1Ds) F5.6 with 5mm of shift. But look at the focus point he used, it's right at the front of the group where it is most important, but what if he also had used tilt and got the people at the back of the photo in perfect sharpness, could this have been done @F5.6 with tilting? What about @F3.5 or if with a imaginary Nikon 28mm TS @F2.8? And at what shutterspeed? You'll notice this is hardly a dark room with lots of high intensity lighting above. Either my circle of confusing is less confused than the lens makers think , or the letter on the upper wall behind the group are not very sharp, almost illegible. To me, this picture is not much better than a $100 PnS digicam, I'm disappointed with the possibility that it should have been/could have been much better of an impact if it was much sharper.


btw, this new vB software upgrade seems to have more s**t fer brains than I do...is that possible? Below the text box I'm typing into right now it says "You have selected 4 post(s) that are not part of this thread" Huh, wtf are they talking about!!!

In conclusion, I would like to have 28mm Nikon shift lens with tilt functionality, autofocus would be nice, F1.8 would be nicer, combined with ISO 25k on the new Nikon D3, should allow me handheld razor sharp shots of infinite DOF @1/200 sec and F16 in the dimmest of light, with vibration control in the lens; in a high-end restaurant where they'd probably kick you out if you started shooting with a PnS and flashes. Now all I need is for that combo to minaturize and fit into the jacket pocket of my suit...not too much to ask for is it ...puts on my jtr 'dreaming' cap on for the future in 2030.

 

[Howell]

Uda, I recommend making multiple shorter succinct posts. I could only make it a 1/4 way through that one.

 

[udaman]

My experiences testing T/S at the camera store...v. long

Ok, so I went into this shop yesterday to look at the rental Canon 24mm T/S F3.5 L

http://www.belaircamera.com/rental.php

I asked to see a D30 rental with this lens, had to emphatically (lazy guys) state I needed to see both working together as they were reluctant to move their sorry arses. After a bit of 'ooh!!!, do we rent that lens, I work here but I don't know' from another guy behind the counter who was clueless; 3 workers were 'excited' as this was a magical T/S lens...woohoo.

I asked if they guy helping me knew how to set the ISO3200 mode as I told him I wanted to see if I could handhold this lens for taking pictures inside a restaurant with low ambient lighting. He did not know , could not figure out how to get it above ISO1600, and proceeded to ask some co-workers. After a consultation of 4 of them, the guy comes back to me and says NO. I tell him, "does the rental come with an instruction manual (lol, at least it's not only on CD/DVD, there is a hardcopy), after telling him that there has been a high-gain mode since at least the 10D. So he reads manual, finds custom setting for ISO3200 and sets to that.

There is a 'shady' spot in side the store at a bookshelf...but 1st I had to ask how to adjust aperture/shutter speed. Silly me, thinking this was a full manual lens of the type I was used to from the '70's I couldn't find the aperture ring on the lens, lol.

Have I mentioned before (rant alert ) how much I hate dSLR's, their ergonimics and GUI comes straight out of M$ Winblows, completely rubbish, combersome/ponderous/slow/counter intuitive is putting it mildly.

So I'm supposed to use my middle finger (oh, yeah I am tempted to use my middle finger alright ;-) ) to push the tiny (I have medium sized male hands &fingers, not tiny short fingers of some Asians) shutter release button and use my index finger to adjust shutter speed via tiny recessed spinning wheel, while using my thumb to rotate the larger commander wheel placed too close to the center of the back of the body such that if I'm not careful/and or stoned I might accidentally put my thumb up my nose while looking through the viewfinder, assuming I don't gouge my eye out in a Monty Python moment . What a Royal ergonomic nightmare of a PITA, kind of like some high-maintenance women I know!!!

Ladies & Gents, let me educate you on ergonimics/UI from 3 decades ago. My Olympus OM series 35mm FULL frame film camera. Vastly smaller and light as the supposedly smallest dSLR, the Olympus E410. Ok, so the OM has litte in the way of automation, but it 'just works™'. The OM series was as wide as a Canon 5D, which is actually good as it provides width necessary for good 2 hands graps of lens/camera...outstanding ergonomics. The OM series had, excepting portion of body that stuck out forward for the lens mount, a very shallow depth, more shallow than even a E410. Why is this good? Well you can wrap your right hand around one side of the body for a perfect grasp/secure, index finger just on top to fit right at a larger mechanical shutter release with optimum travel/tactile snug resistence...if only they could make an electronic shutter relase like that, and there is not reason they cannot!?!? You 2 middle fingers wrap around the side of the body, while your pinky balances underneath the right edge of the body, with your thumb held against the back of the body allowing for strong secure one handed gasp (bigger hands maybe a little too small, but you could get a small 4AA bottom mount battery motor drive & larger side grips) no dSLR currently provides. yeah, I know, you can hold a dSLR with one hand, but not as securely. Your left hand completes the ergonomic triangle, with wrist/plam pad underneath the middle of the body, use use your fingers and palm to balance underneath lenses, either rotating the shutter speed, firm detents, ring around the lens mouth, or adjusting the aperature ring on the lens itself.

Why, oh why, can they not make an electronic aperture ring for newer lenses, as well a putting a spinning electronic shutter speed wheel around the lens mount to mimic the perfect ergonomics of decades ago. You'd be surprised just how much this allows you to concentrate with speed on your subject in the VF...the modo, keep it simple stupid (KISS)...but efficient. With such a system, you have far better control, you can get away with never needing to remove your eye from the viewfinder---meaning you get a higher ratio of 'keeper' shots, undisturbed by poorly placed commander wheels which are better suited to changing embedded menu functions, like ISO, WB etc.

So the guy asks me what kind of coverging lines I would encounter in a restaurant for which this lens would be useful. I tell, him I am also going to use this for taking pictures of flowers and in both cases I'm more interested in the tilt function to get more apparent DOF...Do'h.:rant:

While the rental 5D was out for the weekend, I had them put the 24mm T/S on a demo 5D, to switch back N forth with the 30D to see how much of a difference the crop factor is. It is a difference, and I noticed with this TS lens that determining correct focus & tilt/DOF is not all that easy, as my eyes are so bad they require lots of diopter adjustment on the VF. After getting diopter dialed in, I could see that the 5D has a brighter VF than the 30D (supposedly the 40D is brighter than the 30D, but I wonder if it compares to the 5D which is noticably brigther along with the image being larger, makes manually focusing easier for sure).

Then I noticed something I had not tried, the 5D shutter is Friggin NOISY! Yet another thing about the superior Oly OM series was that their shutter/mirror noise was almost as quite as the legendary Leica rangefinder cameras. The 5D even sounds louder than the 1.5fps 4AA motor drive, whirling sound of the the motor advancing the film, not the shutter/mirror which is fairly quite. In a restaurant or other quiet environment (assuming a decently quite restaurant, not trendy/high noise level) the sound of the 5D mirror motor whirl is nearly obtrusive, and that' from just listening to it inside a camera store where ambient noise is now that low. I understand the 40D has a quiet mode? I wonder how much quieter than the 30D it is, Tannin or anyone else know? I guess I should go back the the camera store and ask to compare the 30D with the 40D in quiet mode.

Other thing I noticed is just how huge the 5D is, not that the 30D is exactly much smaller/light/compact as Anna Nicole Smith, pre-weight reduction days. I want a FF dSLR the size of a ballerina, like a OM1 damn it, and with a relatively silent mirror motor. Holy crap the 5D might just irritate dinners contiguous to my table or at a quiet sushi bar, if I started talking pictures of my meal plates/items like I did with the no-mirror crappy Nikon coolpix 775, which of course makes no sound whatsoever, a number of years ago...and as you can see ISO320? is not enough for handheld shots without image stablization (1st pix show the 'pizza' after I bit into it, Asian version of pizza for Merc, though he might want a fadish [ulr="http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2006/06/pizza_cone.html#comments"]'cone pizza'[/url]:

Just what I need, patrons and evil eye look from a Nazi soup sushi chef telling me to stop taking pictures once they hear the sound of such a noisy dSLR.

I know the original Rebel 300D could be firmware hacked to get the 10D high gain mode of ISO3200 (whereas you can't get than on more recent Rebel models) and the sensor for that old dSLR has more noise than current models, but given that in store playing with the 30D in H mode showed in the darker portions of the bookshelf (and metering is supposedly not accurate when tilted, though I do not recall if it change while I adjusted from full 7degree tilt to no tilt) required 1/30-1/50sec @f3.5. In a dimmly lit restaurant I might have to use 1/15-1/30sec even at ISO3200 (so yeah, the Nikon FF D3's H2 mode of 25k would come in handy here, might even allow stopping down to f8 for greater DOF). I should note, the rental lens had a UV or polarizing filter on the front of the lens, or some type of protective glass, which may have reduced amount of light received at the sensor, removing this might get a one stop increase???

While the maximum tilt, in vertical plane orientation to get 'front to back' DOF, did give more apparent DOF, it was not as much as I was hoping for when at near closest focusing points. I think close focus limits on dSLR lenses and others are determined from the sensor, not the front of the lens element? Seems like I could get the 24mm about 1ft(.3cm) from focused subject, and that would be 1ft from the sensor, not the front of the lens which was about 1/2 that distance.

So then I tried the Canon TX1, of course the sales clerks did not know how to operate it. Took them a while to figure it out. Darn, what a nice small pocket sized, smallest sized Hi-Def 720p video cam it is. But it has no manual controls, save WB adjustment. While the supermacro mode will allow focusing right the front of the zoom lens, there is no DOF when this close, and in the camera store, the auto mode was showing the same 1/60sec & F3.5 I was getting earlier with the TS lens. In actuallity, the tiny 1.8in LCD showed lack of DOF more easily than the VF of even the 5D. the 1.8in LCD was much brighter, easier to see no DOF with than a dSLR's VF.

So the question, assuming I could actually take some pictures with the aperture stopped down, are there any Canon dSLR's that have DOF preview capability, such that you could see this in the VF? Or are you limited to having to review the picture after you've taken it, and viewing with the color LCD on the back, zooming in to see if the DOF is where you want it?

After playing with both the 30D & heavy large (3in diameter is a bit too bulky for my medium sized hands, makes focusing more tedious than a 2in dia. 50mm Oly prime ) TS lens, I got tired/fatigued after just 10 minutes of holding the two. I know the 5D is bigger and heavier still, so I know I would not want to have to handhold this combo, even intermitently over a hour's time.

I could use a Canon TX1 forever, seemingly, while it's mostly metal and sturdy enough, it's a featherweight compared to all dSLR's. Now if they'd only make a OM in a dSLR version, same exact dimensions, construction & weight; I could use that with the bulky 24mm TS, for upwards of an hour or more to great effect ...I hate dSLR's /end rant.

Someday, maybe before I die in a a few decades or so, they'll make a 1/2 way decent dSLR that performs like a 35yr old OM1. Someday, using jtr's wishful engineering feats of extraordinaire, they'll have a 1.5 crop factor D300 sized, Fujifilm Super CCD or CMOS sensor that does low noise @6.4K or 12.8K ISO, with auto tilt lens capability in a Leica branded lens of the size Panny uses in their PnS, image stablized, so you can pull a pocket digicam out of your purse or jacket pocket at a restaurant and unobtrustively take tack sharp, entire plate DOF pictures; of the latest Michelin 3-star restaurant meals, or just that perfect pizza Merc desires

Damn, digicams suck immensely compared to human eyes.

Oh yeah, one more rant, why are rentals so damned expensive?

link above has limited range but lower prices compared to this one...$240/day-weekend for a 5D & TS lens?!?!:

http://www.samys.com/rentals.php?PHPSESSID=4668a6573dba930dc61d3bfaf5adf940


So for now, it looks like I need to buy

a).

Canon TX1, set to wide 36mm, (or telephoto macro?) and move lens as far away from subject as practical...not easy in many instances, and hope to get some DOF, Be happy I can also take 720p video in a go anywhere super-portable pocket-sized PnS.

b). buy a Canon 800is, similar auto only modes, but wider angle @28mm EFOL.

c). be stuck with a bulkier than I want PnS like the A710is (while they are still available), manual focus, quiet, able to bump up to F8...or possibly more, for mildly more DOF at close range.

d) OR, buy a used Canon 300D for ~$200 and hope it's not in serious need of adjustment, Canon servicing/cleaning; hack it to ISO3200 & shoot in RAW + jpeg mode (hope the mirror motor is not too noisy), use noise reduction software, get as close as I want to the subject (with 1.6 crop factor, does focus distance change? I would think not, as only the center of the lens is hitting the sensor, DOF should be the same as on a FF body) using a used 24mm TS-E lens I can buy for ~$900 off e-bay. Then hope and pray that in a few years Canon will release an 'semi-affordable' FF dSLR; so I one day, reclaim the use of that full 24mm FOV, get easier focusing with FF VF; to combat Nikon's next FF offering, maybe in a 40D body and price range...still too large, way too large for my tastes. Beggars can't be choosy.

Cameras are truly maddening; almost, but not quite as much, as women .

 

[udaman]

Uda, I recommend making multiple shorter succinct posts. I could only make it a 1/4 way through that one.

No prob How, only made threw 1/4 UR sig line, don't bother reading IIHS safety tests results I linked to in the Atom thread, way, way, way too long for the typical 5min attention span of average consumer (had a link to that also, would also take too long to hold your attention...oh well).

Howells said: 'Uda, recommend you dumb down-wneddnce: shorten posts for average internet reader attention spans, wha...you think we're all intellectual or somethin...Do'h

 

[Tea]

I had an intellectual once, but I took it back to the shop because it used too much juice.

 

[Howell]

No prob How, only made threw 1/4 UR sig line, don't bother reading IIHS safety tests results I linked to in the Atom thread, way, way, way too long for the typical 5min attention span of average consumer (had a link to that also, would also take too long to hold your attention...oh well).

Howells said: 'Uda, recommend you dumb down-wneddnce: shorten posts for average internet reader attention spans, wha...you think we're all intellectual or somethin...Do'h

You are not a good writer. Don't worry about it. Just shorten the sentence lengths and you will immediately improve. Here's a hint, how many sentences are there in your post I quoted?

 

[udaman]

Eighteen!, 18 of the 24mm/F3.5 Canon TS-E lenses I've tracked on e-bay since I started this thread have sold from a low of $829 (no picture, but notes not in best condition), others in mid'800's that had pictures where suffering small paint chips/abrasions on the corners. Most are listed as in mint condition with varying assertions as to how limited the use was, how few exposures where taken with this lens.

If it's so useful, why are the people that bought it for this special use, which no other lens can accomodate, selling theirs? They keep saying they don't use is much anymore. wtf? And what's with all these people that keep bidding high $900's or over $1k for this lens in used condition, there seems to be an endless supply of buyers. No matter how long I wait, the reserve price set low, each and every lens that keeps being put up for sale, like one every damn week for the past 3 months, is selling for $900+, and there are always 1/2 a dozen bidders. When is the demand going to drop, or will it ever???

On a side note, don't you just love New York photography sellers, if it's not scam sales from Brooklyn (why does the state do absolutely nothing about these scammers, do they pay off the politicians or something?)- it's an in-your-face attitude.

'you talking to me? R you, talking to me? well I'm the only one here. WTF are you talking to me?!?' (RD in 'Taxi Driver')

I asked this seller from NY, last month (how many of these do they have any way???) about one they were selling, was that $25 notation for "shipping and handling' charge, including the total shipping costs, as there was already a window with an estimated shipping cost. I asked for clarification, nothing more. Got a short message "If you don't want to pay the costs, don't bid on the item"...I should have written back I did not appreciate his attitude, given the confusing, unclear, misleading ad...and that he could suck my ****. What a DH, John Anderson is (or his representative answering questions). You will note in the latest add, they don't even specific what this shipping and handling charge is now...mehbee I should drop them another note and dare to ask

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...item=260197176864&_trksid=p3984.cWAT.m240.lVI

 

[LunarMist]

Rent a lens first for the shoot and then consider buying one later. Buy new, rather than used if you don't know the buyer and lens history. The TSE lenses often take some abuse and some people partly disassemble the lens to switch TS axes. Doing this multiple times or clumsily can damage the ribbon wires. The lenses seem to need CLA more than one would like. For static subjects there are software tools for increasing DOF if you don't need the shifting.

Nevertheless you should consider a 4x5 for this project. The swing, shift, tilt, rise and fall sure beat the limited range of the Canon TSE lenses. Large transparencies can be scanned pretty well on the consumer level flatbed scanners.

 

[udaman]

Rent a lens first for the shoot and then consider buying one later. Buy new, rather than used if you don't know the buyer and lens history. The TSE lenses often take some abuse and some people partly disassemble the lens to switch TS axes. Doing this multiple times or clumsily can damage the ribbon wires. The lenses seem to need CLA more than one would like. For static subjects there are software tools for increasing DOF if you don't need the shifting.

Nevertheless you should consider a 4x5 for this project. The swing, shift, tilt, rise and fall sure beat the limited range of the Canon TSE lenses. Large transparencies can be scanned pretty well on the consumer level flatbed scanners.

The seller of the lens assures me that he did not change the T/S orientation and used the lens so infrequently such that he did not think it necessary to have it cleaned/adjusted..."mint" like new condition, so he says. Sure no way of knowing, but for the price of a new lens, I'll get a 300D body to go with.

LOL, LM I wanted something as portable, pocketable as a PnS that would give me necessary DOF up close, with image stablization. I also had in mind using it inside a dimly lit restaurant (could have used it to show you all the rather expensive meal I had over the 4th July weekend at a top-notch restaurant, my once a year luxury, not far from where ddrueding's stomping grounds are). As I said in earlier posts, I played with the rental of this lens in the local camera shop (Bel-Air Camera...which has been in Westwood, probably since I was born), on a 30D body, and a 5D body. I definitely needed the hi-gain setting to get anywhere decent shutter speeds for handholding, which is what I'd have to do at a restaurant table if I wanted to take pictures of the menu items ordered. My parents tried to do this years/decades ago with film cameras when they went on vacation to Europe/France and hit a few Michelin 3-star restaurants (and lesser rated but good meals, resaturants). I handheld, with only 3.5 F stop lens, ISO 1600 is an absolute minimum, 3200 would result in more sucessful shots, and really, if Nikon offered a wide-angle T/S I would have gone Nikon and dropped some big$$$ on a D300, and shoot at ISO6400...I could live with the additional sensor noise @6400 on the D300 w/noise ninja, just to get either a higher shutter speed or the ability to gain just a little more DOF by closing down the aperture.

So I am the winner of a 24/3.5L used Canon TS-E lens. Now all I need is a body to use it, lol. CES is up soon, but I doubt Canon will announce an 5D upgrade (what I really want, FF sensor) then, and even if they did, it would be months before I could get one through retail channels at full price.

Plan then is to get an old 300D, already firmware hacked to get near 10D functionality and ISO3200 (very noisy I know, but I dont have any other alternatives), or get one and do the firmware hack myself.

Yes, I could have rented, but I don't want that. I want a lens I can use now, and on a regular basis over the next year or so to take pictures of my mothers orchids (300D crop sensor means I still can't get the wide-angle anymore than the POS Oly C50Z which goes to effective 36mm, but at least the sensor quality boost should be decent upgrade) in her greenhouse. She is elderly, in failing health, only been into her GH one day the past 6 weeks since falling while putting pants on in the morning Dec.1st and apparently sustaining a hairline fracture (X-rays don't show anything) fracture in her back. Been in pain the whole time, very slow to improve if at all, when you get that age you might be on a dozen drugs like she is, some for pain related to her lung cancer surgery scars that left her with permanent pain in her lower shoulder blade area, some drugs for hypertension, osteoporosis, cholestrol, estrogen replamcent therapy, etc. She's had to stop taking all but Tylenol for pain, as for some unknown reason (could be the pain of the back from the fall) she's had nausea feeling for weeks now.

All said and done, I've been watering the GH, and looking after it every weekend since. Lots of orchids need repotting too, but December/Jan is a big month for flowering, and some of these orchids haven't flowered in years. I've already missed shooting some of them and will probably miss all of them before I get the lens/body to do so. Hope my mother makes it through another year, but currently she's in too much pain to even stand up for periods of more than a few minutes. Btw, you try and get a massively bulky 4x5 at your table in a restaurant and hope you don't get asked to leave...bulky dSLR's are obtrusive enough as is at the sushi bar, were it's elbow room seating only.

Last question, the seller has this also for an additional:

B+W UV filter which has been on this lens since I purchased it, which I will sell to the wining bidder for an extra $40 (retail value of $109).

B+W? Brand name?

Should I take it, or buy a new UV filter? And how much light do you loose with such a filter any way? If it's a full 1/3 of a stop or more, that's almost enough to want to use the lens without the filter to get a higher minimum shutter speed in dim light situations...or better yet, stop down the lens as @F3.5 this lens is not so sharp in the corners and has higher CA than the others in the series.

 

[LunarMist]

B+W is the gold standard of filters.

Use this lens at around f/11 for the best center/corner compromise. A wider aperture should be acceptable if you are cropping to only the central 38% of the image or don't have important details at the corners.

 

[udaman]

B+W is the gold standard of filters.

Use this lens at around f/11 for the best center/corner compromise. A wider aperture should be acceptable if you are cropping to only the central 38% of the image or don't have important details at the corners.

TY LM, so I will go with the 72mm B+W filter @$40, but question remains, how much light fall off is there with such a filter, I've read conflicting reports?

And as stated, I need every last photon of light to get to the sensor so I may use it w/filter, to assure decent handheld shots in dim lighting---yes I suffer from the same affliction as ddrueding, probably even worse as I have trouble handholding; breathing technique, all the tricks tried, anything slower than about 1/60th sec. (no, I'm not going to use a friggin flash inside a high-end restaurant...lugging a big arse bulky dSLR -and by that I mean the rather smallish 300D- into a sushi bar will be enough of an offense...sheesh, some of those soup Nazi sushi chef owners kick you out of the restaurant if your cell phone goes off inside, or in away way upset their peculiar sensibilities).

I will of course in the greenhouse situations, go for F8-F11 shots on the tripod. I'm sure I'll find other situations where I will enjoy the capabilities of this specialty lens---with the crop factor sensor body, it will likely be my primary lens. Now why the hell can't I get a decent dSLR, not a mega-dollar pro model, with interchangeable focusing screens that make it easy to use a manually focusing lens with--- center split halves, with micro prism circle around that (applies to AF lenses where you want to over-ride the AF and use it manually)---damn it, it's what I have on the OM2! Casualties of being too old, and knowing what was available in the film generation

Will post some pix in the 'something random- pictures' thread once a find a body

 

[LunarMist]

I doubt that you would need a filter for flowers unless there are some crazy flying bugs or something, but get this filter if you need one.

 

[ddrueding]

I doubt that you would need a filter for flowers unless there are some crazy flying bugs or something, but get this filter if you need one.

Wow. Is that sample picture representative? If so, I need to get me one of these in 52mm form for my landscapes/panos. The haze sucks at distances over 2 miles.

 

[LunarMist]

No, of course not. Some of the old Ektachromes were excessively UV sensitive, but there is little difference with most films and digital cameras have internal UV and IR filters. Polarizers can cut haze to some extent if that is what you want.

 

[udaman]

No, of course not. Some of the old Ektachromes were excessively UV sensitive, but there is little difference with most films and digital cameras have internal UV and IR filters. Polarizers can cut haze to some extent if that is what you want.

Sorry, I'm confused. "of course not" the UV filter does not reduce light getting to the sensor, say 1/3rd of a stop as I stated I've read before?

If most digicams have internal UV & IR filters, then there would be no reason to use a UV filter over the front of the lens other than protecting the lens from physical damage, yes?

If that was the only consideration (protection from physical damage/protection from the environment), then would not a piece of clear glass that transmits nearly 100% of the light w/AR coating, be better (I forget the trade names of such highly transmissive glass...Schott brand?)?

 

[LunarMist]

General purpose UV filters made with high quality MC glass are practically clear over the visual range and do not affect normal exposures. Cutoffs and slopes vary between brands and are typically between 370-390 nm. Filters like the 2B or 2A have higher cutoff wavelengths around 400-420 nm (often sharp-cut) and are therefore yellowish.

 

[udaman]

General purpose UV filters made with high quality MC glass are practically clear over the visual range and do not affect normal exposures. Cutoffs and slopes vary between brands and are typically between 370-390 nm. Filters like the 2B or 2A have higher cutoff wavelengths around 400-420 nm (often sharp-cut) and are therefore yellowish.

"Practically clear"? Meaning what transmissive rate for visible light spectrum? I can't recall off hand various types of optical grade glass. Schott has one, boro-silicate, IIRC with a certain transmissive rate, there is another trade name with AR coating that supposedly is around 99% whereas higher grade polycarbonate material is somewhere around 95%.

link-
http://www.us.schott.com/optics_devices/english/products/precision_optical_glass.html?

Yellowish or not, you're refering to wavelengths in the UV spectrum being filtered, yes? I'm referring to light absorption/transmissive qualities of different types of optical glass at the visible light spectrum, and whether or not a typical B+W UV filter does in fact reduce the amount of light going to the sensor, vs a lens that has no filter applied in front of it.

If modern dSLR's have built in IR &UV filtering at the sensor, what point is there to putting a filter over the front of the lens, if it results in a drop of 1/3rd a stop? (other than physical protection of the lens glass itself, and protection from environment...you clean the filter when it gets dust on it, or build up of moisture deposits). I would rather have those extra photons hitting the sensor and go 'bare'...F3.5 isn't exactly a fast lens, nor is it particularly sharp or free of CA wide open, if it might make a slight difference in my low shutter speeds, while talking handheld shots as explained above.

Though I would never spend $5k on a Nikon D3 or any other dSLR, I sure would like to have that ISO6400 capability, or even 12.8k to either shoot shorter exposures w/handheld speeds or stop down the lens for better image quality.

Only a wild rumor, but it's been speculated a Nikon D60 upgrade/new model is in the works, which might have some of the D300 capabilities, perhaps high gain setting ISO6400 sensor from the D300. Canon is falling behind in this competitive area.

 

[udaman]

Alright adding to my post above:

we have this thread by less experienced photogs, on NC filters @MR:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4701837#post4701837

LOL, that post #4 is really 'informative'.

Having a filter is important for weather sealing (like robbieduncan said) and for protecting the front element of your lens. That being said, there is a feeling among some photographers (myself included) that feels that when you spend $1200 on a lens of the optical quality of the 70-200, it is a shame to stick a piece of $40 glass in front of it. I tend to use my 70-200 and 24-70 lenses without a filter 95% of the time, but with the hood on for everything except indoor flash photography. For times when I think the front element may be in peril, I got a 77mm B&W uv haze (link). While I agree that it's expensive, I feel that having the lenses that I do, the optical quality is justified.

OK, now i get it B+W is a coating supplier, not a filter manufacturer (was the reference to "MC" meaning > "MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating) by B+W)"?

Damn that 77mm Schneider UV filter is expensive!

 

[udaman]

I did some quick research (is there an acronym for that IDSQR?)...man am I ever confused now, lol!

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html

UV filters are clear, it says in the link above comparing various skylight, haze, and UV filters above. But... B+W UV 010 is also listed in a Google search as UV Haze 010. Now which is it, or are there two different ones in this series? Is there a clear UV and a yellow tinted UV Haze 010 series, like there are for the Tifen filters???

To tell the truth, the UV filter image of the woman is not my favorite. I see increased contrast in the UV filtered image, darker shadows, loss of detail, bluer sky...exaggeration.

Of course, except for after the rain storms we have now and then, LA is the haze capitol of the USA, so if I'm going to be taking any pictures with this lens outdoors, the filter would come in handy.