Filters? What's worth it, and what's not?

I was thinking the other day. Filters can add qualities to your glass collection, that might not even be obtainable by digital processing.
I was thinking, and I came up with these 3 filters being definitley worthwhile to start with. A ND (3 stops and 9 stops), a circular polarizer (help richen water and skies), a infrared filter (obvious reasons.) I also thought a UV or some sort of protection isn't a bad purchase probably if you can afford it, but I'll leave that out as they don't enhance or modify your photo.

What is the best way to do filters anyway? Buy 77mm, and step down rings for your lens filter threads? This way you don't have to buy multiples of the same filters to fit each lens?

9x ND? That may be a little extreme. Or are you looking at 0.3 and 0.9 ND (which correspond to 1 stop and 3 stop differences).

I use UV filters on all my lenses; others don't. I'm frequently in areas of windblown debris, brush, dog noses or other risk factors, so for me it makes sense. But only get good quality ones. I'm using mostly B+W MRC multicoated filters;other good brands are Heliopan or Hoya (S-HMC or better). Cheap filters can cause image quality problems, so it makes no sense to get a cheap filter. I have both UV and polarizer filters for all my lenses; I don't want to change filters when I change lenses in a hurry, and I often have two cameras working at once. If cost is an issue, you can get the filter to fit your largest-diameter lens and a step-down ring. I don't see anything on your gear list that I recognize as using a 77 mm filter; I think the 70-200 f/4 takes a 67 mm.

Jon wrote in post #2609660
9x ND? That may be a little extreme. Or are you looking at 0.3 and 0.9 ND (which correspond to 1 stop and 3 stop differences).

I use UV filters on all my lenses; others don't. I'm frequently in areas of windblown debris, brush, dog noses or other risk factors, so for me it makes sense. But only get good quality ones. I'm using mostly B+W MRC multicoated filters;other good brands are Heliopan or Hoya (S-HMC or better). Cheap filters can cause image quality problems, so it makes no sense to get a cheap filter. I have both UV and polarizer filters for all my lenses; I don't want to change filters when I change lenses in a hurry, and I often have two cameras working at once. If cost is an issue, you can get the filter to fit your largest-diameter lens and a step-down ring. I don't see anything on your gear list that I recognize as using a 77 mm filter; I think the 70-200 f/4 takes a 67 mm.

I just added a 10-20mm today (just got back from the camera shop) which is 77mm, so I'm thinking get the NDS and everything else for that (plus, it's my wide, which will probably be used for most shots needing a polarizer or whatever), and some step-down rings.
I'm going to buy UV filters when I have $. I was pretty against them, but the other night when I thought I scratched my lens, I was panicking (and I still think I might have scratched it a little bit). When I think about the amount of $ I might lose on resell (if it is scratched, need to check under better lighting), it makes me feel retarded for not just getting a UV. I've heard Nikons NC are pretty good too if you don't want to spend so much for protection.
I am thinking of a 2.7 ND filter for when I shoot street scenes, or star trails, and wish I could go that much longer.

Check around - you may need thins for the 10-20. Maybe search for Sigma 10-20 and filters to see what others have experienced.

Jon wrote in post #2609830
Check around - you may need thins for the 10-20. Maybe search for Sigma 10-20 and filters to see what others have experienced.

Hmm? Thins? Would these not work with a step down ring for my other lenses?

Yes, they would; however getting a regular, especially on polarizers, which tend to be thicker than "ordinary" filters, you may get some vignetting with an UWA.

BTW - I assume that if you're getting UVs for protection there'll be one per lens; kind of self-defeating to swap one UV around among all the lenses.

Infrared filter for a 30D?
I have my doubts...

Bamamike wrote in post #2610949
Infrared filter for a 30D?
I have my doubts...

They'll work - just take long exposures. The lenses are more likely to be a problem as some produce hot spots in the center of the photo. There doesn't seem to be a particular pattern to which ones, though. Some expensive ones hot-spot while cheap ones don't.

Jon wrote in post #2610104
Yes, they would; however getting a regular, especially on polarizers, which tend to be thicker than "ordinary" filters, you may get some vignetting with an UWA.

BTW - I assume that if you're getting UVs for protection there'll be one per lens; kind of self-defeating to swap one UV around among all the lenses.

Yes, of course. It's UV, or Nikons NC it seems.
What is this hot spotting thing with infrared, etc etc?

Basically, the center of the image will be overexposed with some lenses. Off the top of my head, the 50 f/1.4 is one, while the 50 f/1.8 isn't. Here's at least a partial list.

Polarizer is a must.
ND are also sometimes needed, if you have fast glass and want to shoot wide open.
I want to get a 20 stop neutral density filter for architecture. The exposure is so slow that the people are not visible during the daylight.
I don't beleive in UV filters.
Graduaten ND might be useful...

As for the size, I am still not sure as to what I want or need. My lenses keep changing.

I think if you're shooting canon, you need a set of 2 filters. One in 58mm size and the other one with 77. The 77mm will cover most of the pro zooms and the 58 most of the primes and slow zooms.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2614608
Polarizer is a must.
ND are also sometimes needed, if you have fast glass and want to shoot wide open.
I want to get a 20 stop neutral density filter for architecture. The exposure is so slow that the people are not visible during the daylight.
I don't beleive in UV filters.
Graduaten ND might be useful...

As for the size, I am still not sure as to what I want or need. My lenses keep changing.

I think if you're shooting canon, you need a set of 2 filters. One in 58mm size and the other one with 77. The 77mm will cover most of the pro zooms and the 58 most of the primes and slow zooms.

Hey Doc. You and I should go shooting one day, send me a pm or something . Perhaps Wintercity this week? Or maybe the Cn tower, with the wintercity coupon (3 people, for $30)

20 stop ND? Do they create such?
Gradutaten ND, which is that?
Polarizer does seem like a must.

Why can't I just buy 77mm and use step-down rings? Would 77mm steppe down to 58mm look ridiculous / stupid?

Look what google dug up:
http://photonotes.org …/beginner-faq/lenses.html

There's a table of all the canon lenses and their diameters.

It all breaks down to this:
1) Canon lenses have 4 filter sizes: 52, 58, 72 and 77mm.

52 and 58 are for primes and cheapie zooms

72 and 77 are for L lenses and long cheapies

THE ONLY exception to the size is the 70-200 f/4 which has the 67mm threads.

Of course long Ls are not included and I beleive they use drop in filters.

So, if you keep on shooting canon, all you need to get are 58 and 77mm filters and then 52->58 and 72->77 step up rings.

After you get that - you're covered for all your shooting.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2614624
20 stop ND? Do they create such?

Yes

Its' for landscapes. Basically it prevents overexposure in the sky.

I tried it, it doesn't look really stupid. I'm concerned about bumping the filter and breaking it though. And it's gonna be a hassle, cause all your small lenses all of a sudden become bigger. Or if you store the filters separately, you'll have to screw them on every time.

The 52->58 only adds a few militmeters, and you never take the ring off once you put it.

Here's what 77 on a 52mm lens looks like:

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2614719
Yes


Its' for landscapes. Basically it prevents overexposure in the sky.


I tried it, it doesn't look really stupid. I'm concerned about bumping the filter and breaking it though. And it's gonna be a hassle, cause all your small lenses all of a sudden become bigger. Or if you store the filters separately, you'll have to screw them on every time.

The 52->58 only adds a few militmeters, and you never take the ring off once you put it.

Here's what 77 on a 52mm lens looks like:

That's not too bad, I don't think I will have any 52mm lenses, maybe the 60mm macro, but that's it, and for macro, I don't see myself needing a polarizer, nd or infrared, and I wouldn't want to get so up close with such an expensive filter anyway.
I am investing in Sigma lenses (for some reason every lens I seem to need, they have, for a better price then Canon, and at very similiar quality, and sometimes better build quality, heck, sometimes Canon doesn't even really have an alternative, like the Sigma 30.)
I have 58mm, 62mm, 67mm, 77mm now. I figure UV for each or whatever if I am getting protection, but all 77mm filters for polarizer or whtaever, considering the filters will be used probably mostly with the Ultra Wide for land scapes, or maybe the 30 1.4.