Building a Filter System: Lee or Cokin?

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.

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

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

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.

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

rhys wrote in post #2378294
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.

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2378494
Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

Ditto.

cyclone wrote in post #2377537
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!

rhys wrote in post #2378294
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!

Denny G wrote in post #2378393
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?

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2378494
Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

olz wrote in post #2380066
Ditto.

Thanks, Guys!

So are Lee overrated given their price?

Denny G wrote in post #2378393
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

olz wrote in post #2380066
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.

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.

DaveG wrote in post #2382165
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?

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.

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2378494
Gradual ND filters are extremely useful.

olz wrote in post #2380066
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.

DaveG wrote in post #2382165
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.

Ryan93se wrote in post #2384316
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.