Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 15 May 2011 (Sunday) 02:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

B+W ND/Polarizing Filters?

 
BzBrian
Member
72 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
May 15, 2011 02:40 |  #1

I'm quite new to special effect filters so I'm thinking about getting both a B+W ND filter and a B+W CPL filter on my Canon 10-22mm UWA.

First, do I need the 1.8 (6 stop ND) or the 3.0 (10 stop ND) filter to get the silky water effect? Also would a GND filter be more useful than a ND filter for landscapes overall?

Second, do I need to get a B+W Slim 77mm CPL filter for my 10-22mm? Also if I used the same polarizer on another lens like the 70-200mm would the slim filter be ok?


Thanks.


I'm a happy Canon SLR and Leica rangefinder user. bw!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 15, 2011 06:59 |  #2

1.) The strength of the filter for getting the "silky" effect depends on the amount of light available, as well as how fast the water is moving (not to mention your chosen exposure settings of ISO and aperture). In some cases, you may not even need an ND filter to get the desired effect. In my experience, you need to get down to a shutter speed of 1/2-second and longer to start seeing the silky effect. The higher the ISO and/or the larger the aperture, the more ND you'd need. The opposite holds true for the converse. THe B+W polarizer will also give you about two full stops of ND reduction in addition to its polarizing effects (it can also be stacked with an ND filter for additional light reduction in addition to polarization). If you could swing it, I'd recommend getting two ND filters...a 3-stop and a 6-stop...with the polarizer, you'll have quite few possible combinations and you'll be covered for most situations. Just need to be mindful of vignetting at wide apertures when stacking filters. The 10-stop is a great filter, but if that's your only filter, you'll be somewhat limited IMO.

2.) A GND is used to balance the exposure between a brightly lit sky and a darker foreground. An ND filter can't do what a GND filter can. Both filters have their place in landscape shooting, but their use depends on the scene, the conditions, and the result that you're after. They can also be combined/stacked. Stay away from the round screw-in GND filters...

3.) You don't need the slim B+W for that lens...the B+W F-Pro model will work just fine without vignetting.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pi_314
Senior Member
Avatar
365 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 60
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 15, 2011 11:36 |  #3

I went with this variable ND filter. Two to eight stops
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_ND_Variable_Ne​utral.html (external link)

The price is hard to swallow, thusly I chewed on it for a while. In the end it went down easy once I got a taste of it. It's a joy to use. Vignetting is a problem and I don't know what that would be on you camera. I'm assuming you do not have a full frame. You might consider a larger size filter if you intend to stack. Much depends on what you have in terms of lens choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 15, 2011 11:55 |  #4

Pi_314 wrote in post #12413320 (external link)
I went with this variable ND filter. Two to eight stops
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_ND_Variable_Ne​utral.html (external link)

The price is hard to swallow, thusly I chewed on it for a while. In the end it went down easy once I got a taste of it. It's a joy to use. Vignetting is a problem and I don't know what that would be on you camera. I'm assuming you do not have a full frame. You might consider a larger size filter if you intend to stack. Much depends on what you have in terms of lens choice.

I also use the Vari-N-Duo...variable ND with an integral polarizer. When you factor in the price of multiple quality ND filters, as well as the price of a quality polarizer, the Singh Ray price is pretty much a wash.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pi_314
Senior Member
Avatar
365 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 60
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 15, 2011 12:29 |  #5

argyle wrote in post #12413438 (external link)
I also use the Vari-N-Duo...variable ND with an integral polarizer. When you factor in the price of multiple quality ND filters, as well as the price of a quality polarizer, the Singh Ray price is pretty much a wash.

I looked seriously at tha one you bought, but ended up taking a pass, because I thought that I might fall into a situation where I'd want them seperated. Although I might kick myself somewhere along the line, as stacking will entail a bit more vignetting than the one you bought.

Gonna get these possibly today to complete the filter buying for now. The prices are real killers,,,,,,,,,,,, aren't they?

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Circular_Polar​izing.html (external link)

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ated_Neutral_De​nsity.html (external link)

Question - Is a two stop gradual ND the best choice over a one or three stop?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben_r_
-POTN's Three legged Support-
Avatar
15,894 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
May 15, 2011 14:25 |  #6

Depending on how bright your ambient light it, yes an ND filter will help you get those silky smooth water effects.

And no, you will not need the slim B+W filter for your 10-22. As long as you get the B+W F-Pro version, youll be fine.


[Gear List | Flickr (external link) | My Reviews] /|\ Tripod Leg Protection (external link) /|\
GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 15, 2011 14:28 |  #7

Pi_314 wrote in post #12413658 (external link)
I looked seriously at tha one you bought, but ended up taking a pass, because I thought that I might fall into a situation where I'd want them seperated. Although I might kick myself somewhere along the line, as stacking will entail a bit more vignetting than the one you bought.

Gonna get these possibly today to complete the filter buying for now. The prices are real killers,,,,,,,,,,,, aren't they?

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Circular_Polar​izing.html (external link)

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ated_Neutral_De​nsity.html (external link)

Question - Is a two stop gradual ND the best choice over a one or three stop?

Unless I happen to be getting a filter from Singh-Ray, I only use B+W filters and all of them from this link...excellent prices, but if you're willing to wait for delivery from HK (not too bad) you can save yourself some money:

Maxsaver (external link)

Can't say for sure which GND I use more...the 2 or 3, for me its probably an even split. I have a 1-stop, but this I haven't used at all (so far).


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
May 15, 2011 16:47 |  #8

As already stated, there are a lot of variables that play into this. The amount of available light will determine how long your shutter is open, and the speed of the water movement during that time will greatly affect the amount of blur you get.

I use the 6 stop filter with my 10-20. In the middle of a bright sunny day, I might be able to get a 2 second exposure if I stop all the way down to f/22. Under the same conditions, a 10 stop filter would give me a 30 second exposure. If I were somewhere under trees or in the shade, those shutter speeds would get considerably longer. Depending on how fast the water is moving, anywhere from about 1/20 or longer should give you some amount of blur.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
May 16, 2011 04:22 |  #9

Pi_314 wrote in post #12413320 (external link)
I went with this variable ND filter. Two to eight stops
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_ND_Variable_Ne​utral.html (external link)

I've tried a couple of cheap versions and they give a horrible cross-pattern when used with the 10-22 at medium strength. Is the Singh-Ray better?


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ottacat
Member
171 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
     
May 16, 2011 06:51 |  #10

Try to work somewhere between 4-7 stops reduction between your combination of ND's and CPL. Your 7D's live view can still see through that much and allow effective composition. At 10 stops your live view can no longer see through and you have to switch to the 'compose, meter + add filter + manually adjust exposure time + shoot mode'. I personally find the blur I'm looking for starts at the 2 second range.

I have a 2 stop ND, a 3 stop ND plus a CPL. I don't tend to shoot waterfalls much with my 10-22 but rather my 17-55 so vignetting isn't an issue with stacking filters. If I bought again I'd get a 3 stop and a 4 stop.

There are several waterfall shots in the most recent 10 shots my Flickr photostream and I list my combination of filters in the description and make the exif data available. It will give you some visible examples of shutter speed vs. blur. I also have one with a Lee Big Stopper which shows the very different effect you start getting a very long shutter speeds.


7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 70-200L IS II, EF 100 macro, 1.4 TC III, 430 EX II
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
2,845 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 112
Joined Sep 2009
     
May 16, 2011 07:20 |  #11

ottacat wrote in post #12418132 (external link)
Try to work somewhere between 4-7 stops reduction between your combination of ND's and CPL. Your 7D's live view can still see through that much and allow effective composition. At 10 stops your live view can no longer see through and you have to switch to the 'compose, meter + add filter + manually adjust exposure time + shoot mode'. I personally find the blur I'm looking for starts at the 2 second range.

I have a 2 stop ND, a 3 stop ND plus a CPL. I don't tend to shoot waterfalls much with my 10-22 but rather my 17-55 so vignetting isn't an issue with stacking filters. If I bought again I'd get a 3 stop and a 4 stop.

There are several waterfall shots in the most recent 10 shots my Flickr photostream and I list my combination of filters in the description and make the exif data available. It will give you some visible examples of shutter speed vs. blur. I also have one with a Lee Big Stopper which shows the very different effect you start getting a very long shutter speeds.

Not true, I use live view all the time through my 10 stop B+W filter. It works fine, including autofocus(contrast detect)..


Please visit my Flickr (external link) and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II-RT, Canon 600EX II-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marcy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,752 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Aug 2007
Location: on the road in an RV
     
May 16, 2011 09:18 |  #12

with the 10-22 lens I found that any polarizer over did the shot so I rarely use it on that lens but I use it on my 24-105 the B+H is a really nice one -




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pi_314
Senior Member
Avatar
365 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 60
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 16, 2011 10:05 |  #13

hollis_f wrote in post #12417864 (external link)
I've tried a couple of cheap versions and they give a horrible cross-pattern when used with the 10-22 at medium strength. Is the Singh-Ray better?

Can't say I have a boatload of experience with ND filters, as this is the first one I have ever owned, and I've only owned this filter for a few days. Used a 24-70 lens the first day, and had no problem with a cross pattern at 24mm. Thats the only information I can give you in this regard.

I do have some experience on buying cheap stuff though. :D
And that is to pick your battles wisely, like battery grips can be had on the cheap, without losing the war. I'm quite happy with my cheap assed version. All I can say is read up well on your opponent, before taking up the sword, lest you perform hari cari in the end. I spent several days reading up on variable neutrals before going in for the kill, and so far I'm without a scratch.

I can say witout question that I got burned financially with the price of the Singh-Ray, the mark-up has to be bordering on extreme, but in all likelyhood they deliver on their claims, which lessens the thought that you have been mugged. bw!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
May 16, 2011 12:21 |  #14

ottacat wrote in post #12418132 (external link)
Try to work somewhere between 4-7 stops reduction between your combination of ND's and CPL. Your 7D's live view can still see through that much and allow effective composition. At 10 stops your live view can no longer see through and you have to switch to the 'compose, meter + add filter + manually adjust exposure time + shoot mode'. I personally find the blur I'm looking for starts at the 2 second range.

I have a 2 stop ND, a 3 stop ND plus a CPL. I don't tend to shoot waterfalls much with my 10-22 but rather my 17-55 so vignetting isn't an issue with stacking filters. If I bought again I'd get a 3 stop and a 4 stop.

There are several waterfall shots in the most recent 10 shots my Flickr photostream and I list my combination of filters in the description and make the exif data available. It will give you some visible examples of shutter speed vs. blur. I also have one with a Lee Big Stopper which shows the very different effect you start getting a very long shutter speeds.

That's probably not accurate...with my 5D2, LV has no problem seeing through 12-stops of light reduction (10-stop + polarizer) in somewhat decent/borderline light. I would imagine the LV on the 7D would be no different...


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
May 16, 2011 12:47 |  #15

argyle wrote in post #12419891 (external link)
That's probably not accurate...with my 5D2, LV has no problem seeing through 12-stops of light reduction (10-stop + polarizer) in somewhat decent/borderline light. I would imagine the LV on the 7D would be no different...

It's not. Just tried it with Heliopan 10-stop ND and it works fine.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,966 views & 0 likes for this thread
B+W ND/Polarizing Filters?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is airsom
308 guests, 160 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.