| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2005 09:55:48 PM · #1 |
Okay, I'm trying to figure out filters...I'll begin learning about them and collecting them as I go, but I need a quick boost in my education as I'm going to Europe for a few weeks in May and would like to know what you guys recommend. My birthday's coming up and I think my in-laws would like to buy me something...perhaps a filter?
Anyhow, what do you recommend I should take? I've got a 16-35mm f/2.8L (yippee!) coming to me in the next week and would like to learn...what's a good first filter (for landscapes and outdoor people photos), what manufacturer, etc.?
Thanks!
Message edited by author 2005-04-03 21:56:48.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2005 09:57:15 PM · #2 |
UV filters for protection on EVERY lens.
Circular polarizer for bringing out the blue in the sky and for cutting down on glare. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 07:51:28 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:20:33 AM · #4 |
| Grad. ND filters (Some people say that digital photographers don't really need these as there are a number of ways to deal with wide contrast range in a scene, but I don't agree with them), infrared if you're interested in IR photography, maybe some ND filters in case you want to obtain slow shutter speeds, and polarizer as mentioned before. As for the brands; Cokin and Singh-Ray for rectangular filters, B+W, Heliopan, Hoya and Tiffen for screw-in filters. Prices vary greatly, so you may want to do some homework before you make your purchase. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:13:42 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Prices vary greatly, so you may want to do some homework before you make your purchase. |
Yeah, I'm finding serious variations and would love to hear some more recommendations...I've searched the threads here at dpc (we all know how well that works) and found some specific info, but not too much to help me out.
I would like to get a general feel for the different manufacturers as well as pros/cons to different "systems" (are there even 'systems' or can they be mixed)?
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:24:40 AM · #6 |
polarizer and ND.
I would also buy the filter sized to the largest lens you have (or plan on getting) and get step up rings for your smaller lenses.
Dave
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:43:49 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
UV filters for protection on EVERY lens.
Circular polarizer for bringing out the blue in the sky and for cutting down on glare. |
This idea is the mmost riduclous idea ever. I fell for it when I started in photography. I can't imagine why someone would buy a real good lens and put a piece of inexpensive glass infront of it with the idea of protecting it. What ever happen to being careful.. Now if you use a real expensive filter that runs several hundred dollars that might be ok, but I have never met anyone yet that did so. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:47:23 AM · #8 |
That's exactly what I'm wondering about...A B+W 77mm UV filter is around $200CAD and I'd be putting it on a lens that cost me $1300CAD! That's one expensive insurance policy! Alternatively, do I want to stick a $40 filter on a supercrip lens??
Help me out here! The more debate you have, the more I learn...
What filters do you use on your expensive glass?
Also, I'm assuming that, with exception of Neutral Density, Circular Polarizer and UV filters the rest can be left for Photoshop?
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 10:49:06.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:48:43 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Grad. ND filters (Some people say that digital photographers don't really need these as there are a number of ways to deal with wide contrast range in a scene, but I don't agree with them), infrared if you're interested in IR photography, maybe some ND filters in case you want to obtain slow shutter speeds, and polarizer as mentioned before. As for the brands; Cokin and Singh-Ray for rectangular filters, B+W, Heliopan, Hoya and Tiffen for screw-in filters. Prices vary greatly, so you may want to do some homework before you make your purchase. |
These are the good quality filters I was talking about earlier. High quality from B&W and Shing-Ray and Heilopan. I have used Hoya and Tiffen, but I would consider them low end compared to the others. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:50:36 AM · #10 |
Another ranty question...I'm ultimately going to end up with at least 2 (maybe 3) 77mm diameter lenses. If I buy a $200 UV protection filter, should I just buy 1 and only use it when I'm shooting, switching back and forth?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:54:14 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Another ranty question...I'm ultimately going to end up with at least 2 (maybe 3) 77mm diameter lenses. If I buy a $200 UV protection filter, should I just buy 1 and only use it when I'm shooting, switching back and forth? |
Why not just learn to be careful with your lens? Save the money and get a high end polarizer and maybe the Shing-Ray Grad ND series. Then put the savings into another good lens. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 10:55:58 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Another ranty question...I'm ultimately going to end up with at least 2 (maybe 3) 77mm diameter lenses. If I buy a $200 UV protection filter, should I just buy 1 and only use it when I'm shooting, switching back and forth? |
Why not just learn to be careful with your lens? Save the money and get a high end polarizer and maybe the Shing-Ray Grad ND series. Then put the savings into another good lens. |
I've also heard that a UV filter is a good idea when shooting in the mountains anyway...but like I said, I'm not finding much good info about this...I'm disappointed to see such little participation in this thread...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:10:22 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Another ranty question...I'm ultimately going to end up with at least 2 (maybe 3) 77mm diameter lenses. If I buy a $200 UV protection filter, should I just buy 1 and only use it when I'm shooting, switching back and forth? |
Why not just learn to be careful with your lens? Save the money and get a high end polarizer and maybe the Shing-Ray Grad ND series. Then put the savings into another good lens. |
I live in Denver at 5000 feet. I have not noticed a UV problem shooting digital. I wonder if UV effects Digital as it did with Film. I think I will give Canon a call this morning and I'll let you know what I find out.
I've also heard that a UV filter is a good idea when shooting in the mountains anyway...but like I said, I'm not finding much good info about this...I'm disappointed to see such little participation in this thread... |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:22:19 AM · #14 |
| OK I jsut got off the phone with Canon. The word is that digital cameras DO NOT NEED UV filters. The sensor is not like film in that way. If you want to cut glare Canon suggests using a high quality Circular Polarizer. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:26:13 AM · #15 |
Excellent...ok, sounds good. So if I can take good care of my lens, I won't need to buy a UV...
Edit: A correction, Henry's sells the B+W 77mm UV filter for $115...it's the circular polarizer and the 'slim' circular polarizer filter that cost $200+...
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 11:29:12.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:33:55 AM · #16 |
My advice is to buy the cheapest, junkiest UV filter you can find, and then never, ever shoot with it. Just put it on the lens when you aren't using it. Lots of times we get an unexpected amount of dust in the camera bag, accidents happen, etc. Protect that L glass when it's not actually being used, but maybe when you're moving it from one place to another in a dusy environment.
Then, when you take it out to shoot, most of the time you won't want to use a filter anyway, and it would be crazy to stick a cheap UV filter over an L lens.
A polarizer can come in hand for some landscape shots or to reduce glare. From traveling in Europe before, one thing that ruined a lot of photos for me ( Film ) was not having a pretty strong ND filter. When you're in the city streets, there's a huge contrast between the bright sky and the sides of buildings that are in shade. An ND filter would really have come in handy.
Or, set up the tripod and take two shots, one exposed for the sky, the other for the buildings and stitch them together in PS.
That's my advice anyway. Whatever filter you get, get the best you can afford, especially with that lens. |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:40:49 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
My advice is to buy the cheapest, junkiest UV filter you can find, and then never, ever shoot with it. Just put it on the lens when you aren't using it. Lots of times we get an unexpected amount of dust in the camera bag, accidents happen, etc. Protect that L glass when it's not actually being used, but maybe when you're moving it from one place to another in a dusy environment.
Then, when you take it out to shoot, most of the time you won't want to use a filter anyway, and it would be crazy to stick a cheap UV filter over an L lens.
A polarizer can come in hand for some landscape shots or to reduce glare. From traveling in Europe before, one thing that ruined a lot of photos for me ( Film ) was not having a pretty strong ND filter. When you're in the city streets, there's a huge contrast between the bright sky and the sides of buildings that are in shade. An ND filter would really have come in handy.
Or, set up the tripod and take two shots, one exposed for the sky, the other for the buildings and stitch them together in PS.
That's my advice anyway. Whatever filter you get, get the best you can afford, especially with that lens. |
That is what a lens cap is for... |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:45:44 AM · #18 |
OOOOOOOOOOOH, I had just thrown mine all away.
Just being extra cautious to protect an expensive piece of glass he might not want to have to replace after a stupid mistake. I don't know about Canon lenses, but it doesn't take much for a Nikon cap, if bounced around or touched accidentally, to pop off. A filter won't pop off unexpectedly.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 11:54:08 AM · #19 |
Has anyone got examples of a shot with and without a uv filter? What differences are you going to see in the pictures? Being slightly color deficient, I can't always tell subtle differences in color. Is that where you'll see the most difference? Will it be in the focus? Or will it be something else?
-RCB |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:13:33 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...I've also heard that a UV filter is a good idea when shooting in the mountains anyway... |
You're quite right. While lens protection is widely quoted reason for using UV filters, these actually serve a specific purpose as well, namely to cut UV light. UV light is amplified by hazy conditions and distance on bright days.
I have experimented with these filters and found that there is a very real application for them. When shooting an expansive canopy of conifers (mostly cedar trees) from an elevation downwards the green colour perceived by the naked eye takes on a bright yellow cast, as if reflected from the surface of the subject. I've found this effect to be strongest in the coastal mountain areas of BC, where haze, much light and extreme humidity often coexist. A good UV filter does, indeed, reduce this undesirable cast.
I use only B+W and Heliopan filters (UV, circular polarizer) on my lenses, which are mostly L glass. I use Cokin NDs occasionally under an overcast and bland sky.
The Cokin system is poorly built, consisting of much plastic, which tends to warp in cold weather. The filters themselves won't fit snugly anymore after a few days(!) of use and are a little awquard to handle and change. Despite this, I still consider them useful for the conditions I've described.
I've found B+W and Heliopan filters to be of stellar quality. If there are any filters which do not unduly interfere with a true image, are free of undesirable casts (place them on a snow-white background and examine them for cast variations between different makes) and aberrations, these are them.
Their polarizers are extremely tightly threaded as well, which means they actually hold a setting regardless of how much you move, handle, pack and unpack your equipment. IMO, they are worth the money they cost.
While you can achieve much via software, the advantage of having a few basic filters is that you can view the effect immediately and either make appropiate corrections or re-shoot the same scene with an entirely different feel or mood.
As others have pointed out already, it doesn't really make much sense to spend your mortgage on expensive lenses and then put cheap filters on them. Whatever deficiencies exists with the fliters will most certainly be magnified by good glass.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 12:25:34 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Excellent...ok, sounds good. So if I can take good care of my lens, I won't need to buy a UV...
Edit: A correction, Henry's sells the B+W 77mm UV filter for $115...it's the circular polarizer and the 'slim' circular polarizer filter that cost $200+... |
I prefer standard filters to slim ones, as I have not found a lens cap which properly fits a slim and does not fall off when you look at it.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 01:11:42 PM · #22 |
Thank you for the very indepth response, zeuszen...as always, it's appreciated!
I'm still not sure which filter to invest in first...I'll have to keep researching and asking...
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 13:12:41.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 02:38:30 PM · #23 |
Well, here we go again...
The filter everything crowd vs. the buy only the most expensive crowd vs. the crowd that thinks no filter at all, arguing.
Check the Canon's own site on their lens, for some reason, the guys that make your L lens recommends that you have a UV or a Skypack (spelling might be off) on it all the time except when using another filter. They don't give an explanation though. But who is more authoritative than Canon on the optics of their lens?
I agree with gwphoto, we don't need UV filtration on top of the UV filtration coating on the lens. Plus I don't think dSLR sensors are sensitive to UV light spectrum, hence they should not be affected by such high frequency light, where as it may have on the film. I use the UV filter to protect my lens. In theory, any plain flat glass you put in front of your lens may degrade your optics unless optically perfect, but what glass is? I don't think such degradation in optical performance will be noticable in most situations. They can always manipulate some setting where you might get some flair,etc, but they are not that common in my experience. Plus we can review and take the filter off, or just remove the filter, take the shot and place it on again. You have to weigh the risk and benefits; possible lens protection vs. possible optical degredation.
According to popular photography, they couldn't SEE any difference between a cheap or an expensive filter of the same kind, so they recommend the cheapest. I can't recall which issue though, sorry. I'll get off my soap box now, sorry.
As for your original question of what filters to carry, I'd say first a UV filter for protection. If you really want theoretically the best optics, then remove it for that shot. Better to have it and not use it, then to need it and not have it. I've never been in an auto accident at more than 1-2MPH, but I always wear a seatbelt for the same reason. Might interfere with my movement, but it's better to have a belt on and not need it than to need it and not have it on.
Second on my list would be a circular polarizer for high glare shots, e.g. water, open sky landscape, etc. If you have more money and room, a warming filter to bring out the color (you can even get a warming polarizer as well but they are more expensive), although it's much cheaper to do it via post processing, and lastly an ND filter to allow you to use longer exposure settings if that is what you want, of course you might need a tripod to really take advantage of the ND filter. If it was me, if I'm not packing a tripod, I wouldn't pack an ND filter. I'm assuming you want to travel as light as possible here.
Lastly, have fun and take lots of shots. Isn't that why we are all into photography? I bet a good composition and manipulation of light through your Rebel will make more of a differnce than whether you have a UV filter or not. Other filters are a differenct story though.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 18:29:46.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 07:09:24 PM · #24 |
Interestingly, Schneider doesn't even make mention of the UV filters when making recommendations regarding digital photography...
See here...
The more I look, the more I think I'll buy a nice B + W Circular Polarizer filter and learn to be careful with my lenses. I may very well change my mind and buy a UV later on solely for protection purposes, but I know I need the C-PL (I know because I'm always tempted to take all of my landscape photos through my tinted car windows!) so I might as well pick that up first.
I'd love to hear more opinions from all of you if you've got something to share...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:07:02 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Interestingly, Schneider doesn't even make mention of the UV filters when making recommendations regarding digital photography...
See here......I'd love to hear more opinions from all of you if you've got something to share... |
When the discussion goes in all directions, it's not a bad idea to conduct your own experiments. Place different brands of UV filters on a snow-white surface. Given reasonable light, you should be able to make out more or less cast, mostly between blue and yellow. If you're discriminating, you'll pick the filter without such an effect. I could tell you who makes such filters, but the idea, of course, is that we find out for ourselves. ;-)
The same, I feel, is true for the use of such filters. If the conditions I described (below) do not exist, the use of such a filter would, obviously, be reduced. Whether or not the filter, actually, does make a discernible difference under such conditions, would require the use of one when and if they are encountered. I encounter them frequently, others may never. Yet both have opinions.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 23:10:39.
|
|
