Filtered (but not for protection)

[clouddancer]

I was given some money for Christmas THAT I haven’t spent yet. Mostly, it was waiting for some other purchases and stuff to clear before deciding what to do with it. I had a thought for a polarizer filter. I was checking out Amazon (won’t link here because I’m back on my work computer and it’s blocked here for some stupid reason). I saw a filter pack from Hoya for a polarizer, UV and something else, possibly a warming filter. It came with a pouch to hold them in and maybe something else, but the details are now fuzzy. Anyway, the pack was 54.95, so 55. Any thoughts on this brand from anyone or whether I should just try out one at a time, maybe I’m not ready for filters? Is this something I should buy in person?

Thanks.

[caradoc]

Hoya’s got a decent reputation. I’ve got a few of their filters.

And anyone shooting digital should have a circular polarizer in their bag – they’re incredibly nice to have around when shooting things like rainbows, or sparkles on snow.

UV filters are pretty much useless for a digital shooter…

I say “save your money and just get the one circular polarizer, and some step-up rings so it fits all of your lenses.”

It’s a lot cheaper to use a 72mm filter on a 52mm-filter-ring-lens with a step-up ring than to buy multiple filters, so just get the filter that fits your largest-diameter lens and rings to match your other lenses.

[CauseISaidSo]

UV filters are pretty much useless for a digital shooter…

That’s probably mostly true, but I’ve found them useful for a couple of reasons:

1) Haze. I’ve taken comparison shots of sunny, hazy landscapes and saw a noticable improvement (not spectacular, but noticable) in long-distance clarity with the filter vs without.

2) Lens protection/cheap insurance. If nothing else, I’d rather scratch a sub-$100 filter (which I’ve done) than an obscenely-priced lens. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses for just this reason.

But now that this subject has come up, this is the second time this week I’ve read something about the uselessness or even disadvantage to using a UV filter. Can someone who feels that way expound on the topic a little? I understand the argument against putting a cheap filter in front of expensive glass, but is there more to it than that?

[CauseISaidSo]

Oh, and clouddancer – I don’t have any Hoyas but I’ve also heard that they’re a good value for the money. And it’s my opinion that warming filters (or most other “artistic” filters for that matter) are more for film than digital since you can get pretty much the same effects in post with digital. But that’s just my opinion and YMMV.

[Curious]

hoyas have a long and IMO good reputation.

and i agree with caradoc on this: “And anyone shooting digital should have a circular polarizer in their bag – they’re incredibly nice to have around when shooting things like rainbows, or sparkles on snow.” but i would expand it to film also. however i don’t have one that fits my current camera.

[clouddancer]

Alright. Glad I asked. I hadn’t heard of most of the names available, and it seemed that NewEgg didn’t have what I was looking for with my lens size (58 mm). I only have the two lenses for now (18-55 and 75-300) and I don’t plan on getting any others for now. Hubby says that when he had his camera and stuff, he always kept a filter on it. If they still have the pack tomorrow, then I’ll go ahead and get it along with Hubby’s birthday gift so I can make one purchase. Glad I asked about the brand, and also glad it’s getting a good quality review here. I was particularly impressed with the review on Amazon by the optician (or ophthalmologist, I forget which) who says he likes the brand so much and thinks they’re that good, he uses that brand also for glasses lens, which I thought was cool.

I have plenty of room in my gadget bag for them, so I look forward to their arrival and subsequent use. Thanks for the help!

[orionid]

2) Lens protection/cheap insurance. If nothing else, I’d rather scratch a sub-$100 filter (which I’ve done) than an obscenely-priced lens. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses for just this reason.

This. Although the glass on my 65mm macro is so deep that it’s inherently protetected unless you’re focused on something just a few inches away, so I usually don’t have a filter on that one.

And it’s my opinion that warming filters (or most other “artistic” filters for that matter) are more for film than digital since you can get pretty much the same effects in post with digital. But that’s just my opinion and YMMV.

My milage has varied. I read an article in Outdoor Photographer about 18 months back talking about the “must-have” filters in your bag. CP was number one for a multitiude of reasons, but the 82B incandescent was rated number two. Indoor household lighting is alot redder than anything else, and even under the best conditions can only be corrected so far with digital post processing. If you only shoot .jpg, this is even worse. I haven’t used the 82B yet, but I do agree with the problems of getting true WB with incandescant 75-100W indoor lighting.

If I had to list my top three filter recommendations, I’d say
1) Circular Polarizer – if only one, this is the one.
2) Graduated Density – Landscapes: Do you expose the sky and lose detail on the ground, or do you expose the ground and wash out the sky? Do you expose halfway between and hope for good latitude on your sensor? This lets you have cake and eat it too.
3) UV Haze (digital) / Daylight (film) – mostly just a camera condom, but does help in those humid summer days, especially from far away.

[caradoc]

and i agree with caradoc on this: “And anyone shooting digital should have a circular polarizer in their bag – they’re incredibly nice to have around when shooting things like rainbows, or sparkles on snow.” but i would expand it to film also. however i don’t have one that fits my current camera.

I specified digital because film shooters can use either circular or linear polarizers to great effect.

Linear polarizers do Bad Things to digital, typically for TTL metering and occasionally problems with autofocus.

I have both a linear and a circular in my filter bag, because a linear polarizer on the front of a circular polarizer makes for a nifty variable neutral-density filter as long as you don’t mind a weird color cast when approaching totality.

[caradoc]

1) Haze. I’ve taken comparison shots of sunny, hazy landscapes and saw a noticable improvement (not spectacular, but noticable) in long-distance clarity with the filter vs without.

Try it again with a polarizer instead of a UV filter – “haze” is typically caused by light reflecting from particulates, and can be dramatically cut with a polarizer. Also, you can give the polarizer a twist and vary the “haziness” if you choose.

2) Lens protection/cheap insurance. If nothing else, I’d rather scratch a sub-$100 filter (which I’ve done) than an obscenely-priced lens. I keep a UV filter on all my lenses for just this reason.

I find that a good lens hood provides better protection than a glass filter – moreso after having witnessed two different people scratching the hell out of their front elements by dropping the lens and shattering the filter. In both cases, a good lens hood would have dramatically reduced the likelihood of damage.

But now that this subject has come up, this is the second time this week I’ve read something about the uselessness or even disadvantage to using a UV filter. Can someone who feels that way expound on the topic a little? I understand the argument against putting a cheap filter in front of expensive glass, but is there more to it than that?

If you’ve looked over my work, you’ll note that I shoot an awful lot of very high contrast images, whether lightning or using strobes.

Putting a filter over the front of the lens makes for a lot of lens flares, “orbs,” “ghost lights,” and other artifacts resulting from light passing through the filter, reflecting from the front element of the lens, then reflecting again from the inside surface of the filter. There are some filters that are coated to reduce that effect, but none of them that I’ve tried have eliminated the effect.

[CauseISaidSo]

Interesting, thanks for the response. I will try the CP next time. And I do almost always use a lens hood.

I’ve never really noticed the effects you refer to in my shots, but I’m not exactly shooting at the level you do, either.

[clouddancer]

My filters came today. Unfortunately, I also got a call early this afternoon from my supervisor informing me that I was being transferred to another supervisor and account because of the demand on that account, so I haven’t had a chance to play with them yet. I’ll try to carve out a bit of time tomorrow to do so, though. Since no one else is here, Chancellor will sleep, so I should be able to sneak out even for a few minutes, or even take him for a walk and try them out then. The pouch is nifty. 🙂

My husband’s 17 pound 8-inch diameter granite mortar and pestle came today as well, and that’s just begging to be photographed.

[ravnostic]

My husband’s 17 pound 8-inch diameter granite mortar and pestle came today as well, and that’s just begging to be photographed.

That can be a two-fer, 3 somethings next to it for 5IRO, and one something else for CPN. 😀

[clouddancer]

Yeah, I plan on using that (and/or the small white marble one we have) for the CPN contest.

Although now that you mention it…. We have cinnamon sticks…three subjects… mortar and pestle, cinnamon sticks, ground cinnamon…but that might be too much work (we have ground cinnamon so I’m not talking about that).

[ravnostic]

You don’t have to grind the cinnamon–just stage the scene–pour some in, put in the sticks around it. Or next to it. Or whatever.

I’m having a really tough time with my 3 musicians. I cannot decide on candid or staged, nor color vs. b/w. Any and all are good, I just don’t know what will be better liked. I think I’m going to FB this.

[kashari]

I find that a good lens hood provides better protection than a glass filter – moreso after having witnessed two different people scratching the hell out of their front elements by dropping the lens and shattering the filter. In both cases, a good lens hood would have dramatically reduced the likelihood of damage.

This is good advice and I wish I would have followed it before I dropped my 70-300 lens(which did get fixed, luckily). I had a good Heliopan UV filter on it and had the hood in the bag. So I ended up losing an expensive filter on top of damaging the lens.

I’m going to try and make it a habit to keep the hood on all the time, even when turned backwards, I think it would still provide some shock absorption.

I’m also not going to worry about replacing my UV filter. I do have a Hoya, but don’t want to use it with my good glass. I do have a Helio CPN, which is really nice to have at times.

[Author]

Posts