Building a Filter System: Lee or Cokin?

[Balliolman]

Having slowly built a general photography kit my attention is now turning to getting filters (I have never used them). My thoughts are Lee (quality) or Cokin (affordability).

Apart from holders I shall get three ND Grads and a Polariser. Which make would you choose and why? Should the filters be glass or another material? Whatever I buy will be for the long term and should be usable on my DReb and its replacement (ideally a 5D or what may be its equivalent in a couple of years time)

Thanks for your input. :)

[cyclone]

Many people like HiTech. Better quality than Cokin, less expensive than Lee.

[Tsmith]

I've been pleased with the HiTech brand using a Cokin Holder.

[rhys]

I'm not impressed by any of the slot in filter systems. We just don't need them any more. All we need are polarisers, NDs and UV filters. Simpler and better as round glass filters.

[Denny G]

I use:

Holder and rings..........Cokin P series.......least expensive.

Filters........Hitech.......ND Grad (Soft) Polyester Resin....... Flatter than polished glass and more scratch resistant than gels.

Polarizer.......Canon Circular PL-C and PL-C II.......For the same reason I buy Canon lens.

Denny

[Tsmith]

I'm not impressed by any of the slot in filter systems. We just don't need them any more. All we need are polarisers, NDs and UV filters. Simpler and better as round glass filters.

Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

[olz]

Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

Ditto.

[Balliolman]

Many people like HiTech. Better quality than Cokin, less expensive than Lee.

I have followed your suggestion and looked at Hi Tech: it looks like good kit. Thanks! :-)

I'm not impressed by any of the slot in filter systems. We just don't need them any more. All we need are polarisers, NDs and UV filters. Simpler and better as round glass filters.

They are the only ones I am considering, too! :)

I use:

Holder and rings..........Cokin P series.......least expensive.

Filters........Hitech.......ND Grad (Soft) Polyester Resin....... Flatter than polished glass and more scratch resistant than gels.

Polarizer.......Canon Circular PL-C and PL-C II.......For the same reason I buy Canon lens.

Denny

So resin are tougher than glass and give just as good results?


Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

Ditto.

Thanks, Guys! :D


So are Lee overrated given their price?

[DavidW]

Polarizer.......Canon Circular PL-C and PL-C II.......For the same reason I buy Canon lens.
Whilst that logic makes sense, I also believe it's a bad choice. The Canon filters are nothing special - supposedly they're rebranded Tiffen and not multicoated. The only time I'd use a Canon brand filter is a drop in on a super telephoto (not that I own any lenses big enough to have drop in filter capabilities).

For screw-in filters I buy B+W, opting for MRC if it's available. Other good brands are Heliopan (opt for SH-PMC if you can) or the higher end Hoyas that are multicoated.


For holder based systems, you have a choice on format - is Cokin P series wide enough, or would you be better with the 100mm Lee format? I believe, but am not completely sure, that the Cokin Z-Pro holder is the same 100mm size as Lee. Meanwhile, Lee filters can be ordered in P series format.

Once you've decided on format, and which holder you want to buy for that format, you then need to buy filters. Cokin's ND grads apparently aren't neutral, but other brands are available that are more neutral.



David

[DaveG]

Ditto.
Not me. I think that the gradient tool and RAW format exposures are much better than grad ND's. I've got a whole set of Cokin grad ND's and a few Cokin grad colour filters, from the my old film days - where they were incredibly important - but I haven't needed them since I went to digital. Now I just bought a 3 stop ND filter (not a grad) and a circular Polarizer, and those filters do things that photoshop can't. But other than UV filters for front element protection I see no use for any other kind of filter.

[DocFrankenstein]

It's axiomatic that filters should be made from glass and multicoated. This only leaves you with Lee.

But ask yourself - do you really want such a bulky system? You're only starting out - maybe buy the screw-in filters? That's what most people get.

[olz]

Not me. I think that the gradient tool and RAW format exposures are much better than grad ND's. I've got a whole set of Cokin grad ND's and a few Cokin grad colour filters, from the my old film days - where they were incredibly important - but I haven't needed them since I went to digital. Now I just bought a 3 stop ND filter (not a grad) and a circular Polarizer, and those filters do things that photoshop can't. But other than UV filters for front element protection I see no use for any other kind of filter.

Maybe my photoshop skills are insufficient but for instance when the horizon is not a straight line but very buisy and full of objects I find it difficult to extract the sky (I assume that's what you do before using the gradient tool). Either way I find it very time consuming compared to use a gradient filter in the field. It's because I'm trying to prove my right (because i know what can be done in photoshop) but could you try and elaborate your techniques perhaps with some examples?

[Ryan93se]

i think he is saying in essence he is doing the same thing as a grad ND filter in post production... by having 2 seperate images 2-3 stops apart taken from 1 RAW, you put both in one photoshop document and create a smooth gradient mask over the dark one exposing the sky correctly. therefore you arent masking any objects.. just doing the same thing the ND filter would be for you.

[Jon]

Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

Ditto.
I quite agree. To handle a 3-stop difference in post-processing requires two separate shots; unless you're well-positioned to use a tripod (not always possible due to terrain and not always feasible due to traffic) maintaining the necessary alignment will be very difficult. Slide the appropriate soft or hard grad down and it's a single-shot effort.

[ruairidh]

Not me. I think that the gradient tool and RAW format exposures are much better than grad ND's. I've got a whole set of Cokin grad ND's and a few Cokin grad colour filters, from the my old film days - where they were incredibly important - but I haven't needed them since I went to digital. Now I just bought a 3 stop ND filter (not a grad) and a circular Polarizer, and those filters do things that photoshop can't. But other than UV filters for front element protection I see no use for any other kind of filter.

i think he is saying in essence he is doing the same thing as a grad ND filter in post production... by having 2 seperate images 2-3 stops apart taken from 1 RAW, you put both in one photoshop document and create a smooth gradient mask over the dark one exposing the sky correctly. therefore you arent masking any objects.. just doing the same thing the ND filter would be for you.

So what happens when the range exceeds the ability of the camera to record? Neutral Densitys allow you to reduce the overall range between brightest and darkest areas of the image. Unless you are going to take two exposures, instead of two different RAW conversions, you can loose detail in the shadows or highlights.

The seperate exposure is ok for a clean horizon but if there is anything moving then this can cause difficulties in merging the exposures.

Back to the subject. If you intend to upgrade to a FF camera in the future I would recommend a larger filter size (such as Lee) as opposed to Cokin P series, which can cause vignetting below 28mm focal lengths.

[Balliolman]

It's axiomatic that filters should be made from glass and multicoated. This only leaves you with Lee.

But ask yourself - do you really want such a bulky system? You're only starting out - maybe buy the screw-in filters? That's what most people get.


Mmm, food for thought! I already use a circular polariser ... Thanks, Doc.

[Balliolman]

Back to the subject. If you intend to upgrade to a FF camera in the future I would recommend a larger filter size (such as Lee) as opposed to Cokin P series, which can cause vignetting below 28mm focal lengths.

Thanks for this practical tip! :)

[Ryan93se]

very true... this is why i still think the ND system is WAY better than just PP.

So what happens when the range exceeds the ability of the camera to record? Neutral Densitys allow you to reduce the overall range between brightest and darkest areas of the image. Unless you are going to take two exposures, instead of two different RAW conversions, you can loose detail in the shadows or highlights.

The seperate exposure is ok for a clean horizon but if there is anything moving then this can cause difficulties in merging the exposures.

Back to the subject. If you intend to upgrade to a FF camera in the future I would recommend a larger filter size (such as Lee) as opposed to Cokin P series, which can cause vignetting below 28mm focal lengths.

[DocFrankenstein]

I quite agree. To handle a 3-stop difference in post-processing requires two separate shots; unless you're well-positioned to use a tripod (not always possible due to terrain and not always feasible due to traffic) maintaining the necessary alignment will be very difficult. Slide the appropriate soft or hard grad down and it's a single-shot effort.
Are you taking scenic/ladnscape shots without a tripod often?
Are you handholding while you adjust your fiddly ND filter?
Are the cars in the line between the sky and the horizon?

My point is that you're bound to use a tripod anyways... might as well use photoshop with merged exposures.

[Jon]

Are you taking scenic/ladnscape shots without a tripod often?
Are you handholding while you adjust your fiddly ND filter?
Are the cars in the line between the sky and the horizon?

My point is that you're bound to use a tripod anyways... might as well use photoshop with merged exposures.
Yes, yes, and traffic through where I'm standing, not the more specific "automobile traffic" against the horizon. Mountain trails aren't all that tripod-friendly.

Edit - Oh, and ever hear of a monopod?

[DocFrankenstein]

Edit - Oh, and ever hear of a monopod?
Let's see your cokin rig on a monopod.

[Croasdail]

Let's see your cokin rig on a monopod.

if I can use a 600 f4 on a monopod, I really don't see how adding a p-holder and a ND filter complicates the situation all that much. What, you've added 2 or 3 ounces to the deal. Where do you get the impression that these filters are combersome? They don't add any more complexity to shooting then does a circ. polariser. When I used to run the mythically beautiful Colorado River through Flaming Gorge between Utah and Colorado, I used these systems all the time as the canyon was quit dark and to get proper exposure for the sky, you have to use an Grad. ND. I used a grad. ND just the other day shooting basketball in an venue where there was considerable glare hitting a remote camera I had setup. I was able to move the horizon line up very high so that it just cut the lighting from the overhead lights by 1 stop, which balanced the shots way better then any fixed ND could have. There was no amount of RAW post magic that was going to recover highlights that were already gone. Not that there isn't use in traditional filters, they have their use. Not that there isn't a lot that can't be done by faking it in PP. But to say they have no use or are combersome show that you haven't learned how to use them yet. Give 'em a whirl amigo.... they can really save you hinnie sometimes. Well worth the few ounces they add.

[AdamJL]

So are Lee overrated given their price?

I don't think they are.
I had a Cokin GND system (and a couple of colours, I must admit!!) previously and with the GNDs I noted a colour cast that many people said they saw previously in Cokins (thought lots didn't as well!)
I took the plunge to Lee a couple of months back - I have NO problems with Lee now.
Not only are the filters of better quality, but they are huge, which helps out a heck of a lot with composition, and the holder is brilliant. It is customisable, so if you are shooting UWA, with 1 filter, you can take off the additional "spaces" on the holder so it doesn't vignette your shot.

[Balliolman]

I don't think they are.
I had a Cokin GND system (and a couple of colours, I must admit!!) previously and with the GNDs I noted a colour cast that many people said they saw previously in Cokins (thought lots didn't as well!)
I took the plunge to Lee a couple of months back - I have NO problems with Lee now.
Not only are the filters of better quality, but they are huge, which helps out a heck of a lot with composition, and the holder is brilliant. It is customisable, so if you are shooting UWA, with 1 filter, you can take off the additional "spaces" on the holder so it doesn't vignette your shot.

Thank you, Adam! :)