Filters - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

04/12/2005 09:56:04 AM · #1

I am wondering if i should buy a set of filters off ebay or jus buy 1 or 2 filters for those of you who have been taking pictures for a while do you find that you use filters often enough to warrant buying a whole set or do you jus keep the skylight filter on and leave it be? what are the must have filters ND? Polarizer? how come those are so expensive? thanks,

Leon

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

04/12/2005 09:58:33 AM · #2

I don't use filters other than a UV on each lens, just to protect the front element.

Steve

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/12/2005 09:59:32 AM · #3

UV protects the lens or it alters the picture?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

04/12/2005 10:08:48 AM · #4

Polerizers can be useful to reduce glare or help saturate the photos. ND filters just make your camera less sensitive to light. The only time you want them is if there is too much light for the shutter speed and appeture you need. This is very rare. Graduated ND filters have a half ND half Clear element. This is good for helping sky and land expose more closely to correct in the same shot where the difference in light is emence. I rarely use any filters, but polerizers are quite popular.

fstopopen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/12/2005 10:13:37 AM · #5

get filters!!! I have the cokin "P" series, and I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it. I don't know what I would do without my graduated neutral density filters. I use them all the time. And I also like using just a plain ND filter in bright sunlight to make that "streaky" water effect. More than anything, the cirucular polarizer is a god send. This filter punches up color in a way that is very different from what you can do in photoshop. It also reduces/eliminates reflectivity on most surfaces. i.e. water and glass. Comes in very handy.

drake

neophyte

Nikon D810

04/12/2005 10:13:42 AM · #6

I just bought a polarized filter. I'm curious about the UV comment, My camera needs to be protected against light (and or UV rays?????)?

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 10:14:00.

04/12/2005 10:15:27 AM · #7

I'm also in the midst of researching filters...Here's what I've found out that might help:

1) UV filters can be important at high altitudes for film cameras. For digital, they are not necessary (according to Schneider, who make B&W filters and I believe according to Canon as well). Many people use UV filters to protect the front of the lens.

2) Don't use a UV filter that will degrade the quality of the lens...it just doesn't make sense. You'll have to research this further. Some people swear that the good, cheap filters are just as good as the good, expensive filters. Avoid the crappy, cheap filters.

3) Nobody wants to sell me a 77mm B+W Circular Polarizer.

04/12/2005 10:16:27 AM · #8

Originally posted by neophyte:

I just bought a polarized filter. I'm curious about the UV comment, My camera needs to be protected against light (and or UV rays?????)?

No, your film does...especially in thin air. For digital it's not necessary, people only use it to protect the front glass.

fstopopen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/12/2005 10:17:38 AM · #9

oops, forgot to address the UV filter. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses. The filter does punch up color a little bit, but not really noticably to me. I keep it on there for protection. Not protection from the sun, but from me, and the fact that I am clumbsy. Let's say you drop your camera on the lens end, or a car driving by throws up a rock and hits your glass, well with the UV filter on there, the filter breaks and you still have your very expensive lens in tact. It is much cheaper to replace a $10 filter than a $1200 lens. (not that I actually own a $1200 lens)

drake

04/12/2005 10:19:18 AM · #10

Originally posted by fstopopen:

Of course, it goes without saying that you wouldn't want to actually take photos through a $1200 lens that had a $10 piece of glass stuck to the front of it.

fstopopen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/12/2005 10:20:30 AM · #11

good point. I suppose I was exaggerating on both ends. ;)

drake

04/12/2005 10:24:36 AM · #12

Originally posted by fstopopen:

good point. I suppose I was exaggerating on both ends. ;)

drake

]

hehe...but it's a fair debate.

For example, my wife just called me to say that my 16-35 has just arrived (whoooopeeeee!!!!). It's a $1300 (CAD) purchase...now, which filter do I want to put in front?

We know it doesn't make sense to put a $10 filter on the front of L glass but does it really make sense to put a $100 B+W UV filter on it for the sake of protection? That's an expensive insurance policy and the repair to the front element wouldn't be much more, I don't think.

So what now? Should I put a Hoya filter on it...or should I just skip the UV filter and be careful with it.

I'm having trouble with this decision as well, but I'm leaning towards skipping the UV filter for regular use and perhaps buying a Hoya to put on there if I shoot a rodeo or something like that.

Barry

Sony DSC-S85

04/12/2005 10:38:16 AM · #13

UV filters are am excellent way to protect your lens. Not from light but rather from accidental damage. Think about it. You are walking around in places that your lens my come in contacted with objects like tree branches or anything that can poke the surface of your lens, the inexpensive filter takes the blow rather than your expensive lens. With a filter in place you can take your shirt to wipe the dust of your lens as well. Does it degrade the image, maybe but with a good lens and good filter I don't think it is noticable. Bottom line is if you can put a UV filter on your camera you should, Just my opinion.

Barry

04/12/2005 10:39:01 AM · #14

Originally posted by Barry:

Which brand of filters do you use?

04/12/2005 10:44:58 AM · #15

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by fstopopen:
good point. I suppose I was exaggerating on both ends. ;)

drake
]

hehe...but it's a fair debate.

For example, my wife just called me to say that my 16-35 has just arrived (whoooopeeeee!!!!). It's a $1300 (CAD) purchase...now, which filter do I want to put in front?

We know it doesn't make sense to put a $10 filter on the front of L glass but does it really make sense to put a $100 B+W UV filter on it for the sake of protection? That's an expensive insurance policy and the repair to the front element wouldn't be much more, I don't think.

So what now? Should I put a Hoya filter on it...or should I just skip the UV filter and be careful with it.

I'm having trouble with this decision as well, but I'm leaning towards skipping the UV filter for regular use and perhaps buying a Hoya to put on there if I shoot a rodeo or something like that.

Hoya makes good filters. Not the $10 or $15 dollar ones, but the multi-coated filters from Hoya will do fine. As far as replacing the front element of your 16-35 for $100, aint gonna happen, at least not in this century. You can expect to pay at least 1/3 of the cost of the new lens value to replace a front element on a Canon lens.

04/12/2005 11:16:28 AM · #16

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It's an ongoing debate...

...and on...

(but you're right about my math).

I've got an 80-200 showing up with a Hoya UV on it so I'll be able to test it out next week.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 11:24:37.

04/12/2005 11:29:27 AM · #17

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

It's an ongoing debate...

OK, I love a debate, but tyhe arguement you posted in this link is pure bullshit. Modern lenses don't scratch? A scratched lens won't affect image quality? Putting a post-it note on your lens won't affect image quality? Come on. Modern lenses do scratch fairly easily and a scratched lens will definatly and sometimes quite noticably affect image quality.

The fact is a good multi-coated U/V filter will NOT cause lens flare or any other problems. They will protect an expensive lens not only from drops, sticks and flying gravel, but from the abrassions caused by cleaning. If the filter is left on at all times it becomes a rare occasion that a lens cloth ever needs to come in contact with your front element.

04/12/2005 11:39:48 AM · #18

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

It's an ongoing debate...

OK, I love a debate, but tyhe arguement you posted in this link is pure bullshit. Modern lenses don't scratch? A scratched lens won't affect image quality? Putting a post-it note on your lens won't affect image quality? Come on. Modern lenses do scratch fairly easily and a scratched lens will definatly and sometimes quite noticably affect image quality.

The fact is a good multi-coated U/V filter will NOT cause lens flare or any other problems. They will protect an expensive lens not only from drops, sticks and flying gravel, but from the abrassions caused by cleaning. If the filter is left on at all times it becomes a rare occasion that a lens cloth ever needs to come in contact with your front element.

Okay, I think I'll end up getting a UV for my 16-35. 77mm provides a pretty big surface area for foreign objects, too!

04/12/2005 11:43:59 AM · #19

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Okay, I think I'll end up getting a UV for my 16-35. 77mm provides a pretty big surface area for foreign objects, too!

Just try not to cut corners on the filter. The difference between a multi-coated filter and a non-coated filter is like the differnce between night and day.

04/12/2005 11:53:40 AM · #20

i see i see atleast now i have a better understanding however because polarizers are popular is that why the price is a little higher i usually go to ritz camera i dont think they have those real expensive filters and i probably wouldnt buy one any way non of my lenses cost alot they come straight from ebay second hand. Iam still in limbo about the ND filter though graduated or regular? i think graduated is half the lens is filtered and half isnt for when doing landscapes? Circular or linear i read some where one is for manual and one is for automatic? I bought a diff filter and they suggested it for doing portraits however iam in limbo with that one to becuase it doesnt seem like that would be used in auto focuse or manual? the pictures come out soft focused so how do i know if the picture really is focused? thanks to all !!!!!

LEON

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/12/2005 12:01:27 PM · #21

Originally posted by LEONJR:

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/12/2005 12:14:16 PM · #22

Originally posted by LEONJR:

Polarizers cost a lot because optically pure polarizers are expensive to produce. Not only is the glass exacting to make, theyhave to be mounted in a rottating mount which means moving parts. Popularity has nothing to do with it. The circular polarizer is what you want, you rotate it and observe the results as you do so, then take your picture. Has nothing to do with auto vs manual focus.

With the diffusion filter, focus can still be attained easily; the diffusion only becomes noticeable at small apertures and focusing on a dSLR is done wide open.

The graduated ND filter comes in different "flavors"; I am familiar with 50/50 straight-across gardation and radial gradation (dark-to-transparent gradation from outside in, a "vignetting" filter), and there are, I believe, straight-line ones split on the 1/3 lines as well. We also used to have a very large, square ND filter in a sliding/rotating mount, but that was for large-format photography. It was fun to use.

Robt.

04/12/2005 12:31:38 PM · #23

ahhhh thanks

04/12/2005 12:33:15 PM · #24

Originally posted by bear_music:

The circular polarizer is what you want, you rotate it and observe the results as you do so, then take your picture. Has nothing to do with auto vs manual focus.

AF may not funtion properly when using a linear polarizing filter.