Canon 6D Filter question

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I have a Canon 6D with the 24-105mm lens, Ive just bought three filters, UV, Polarize and ND.</p>

<p>What order should I put them on the lens?</p>

<p>cheers.</p>

<p>You probably never need all of them at the same time. At least I can't think of a situation. The three different filters all serve different purposes. The UV filter is largely used as a protective element, Polarizing filters help to cut the amount of reflection from reflective surfaces and also boosts contrasts and colours somewhat. Neutral density(ND) filters evenly cut the amount of light reaching the sensor, usually used when one wants to have a slow shutter speed without using an extremely small aperture, such as when there is just way to much light to use a slow shutter. I'm sure others can give better examples of uses for the filters I don't use filters too often myself. Basically to answer your question I would recommend only using one at a time.</p>

What are you trying to accomplish with the filters?

<p>Some people use the UV filter to protect the front element of the lens. Whether this is needed depends on your use. The Polariser and ND filters are more specialised, only use these if there is a good reason. I have taken all my UV filters off my lenses after I found my 100-400L performed AF better without it. I do replace the caps if the lens is not needed straight away.</p>

<p>I would generally not use a "protective" UV filter. (See my reasoning: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">UV Filter or Lens Cap and Hood?</a>)</p>

<p>You might rarely use a polarizer, but you would not leave it on the lens. The polarizer can be used to deal with reflections on glass or the surface of water and for certain other purposes, but only put it on when you need those things.</p>

<p>Most people will probably never need a ND filter. Why did you get yours? It simply darkens the image a bit - the amount varies - so that you can shoot at a larger aperture or lower shutter speed.</p>

<p>If you have a UV filter on your lens, remove it to add either of the others.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

I've stacked a polarizer and ND filter on some occasions while photographing waterfalls, but otherwise cannot imagine

many scenarios where you'd want even two of these on a lens at the same time. I don't necessarily agree with Dan that

use of the polarizer would be rare, but otherwise all the comments about say what I would have...you don't need all these

filters on at once. Personally, I never use UV filters at all, often use a polarizer, and very infrequently use an ND filter., but

ymmv.

<p>toss the UV, unless you are going to the beach & need protection. Just keep the polariser. Put the ND in a drawer, you might need it some day. Does the filter mount rotate while focusing? If so, put the polariser in a drawer; you might want to use it some day.</p>

<p>Dane, your "three filters" sound like a package offered to you by the retailer who sold you your camera. Often/typically these packaged filters are junk. If I might ask, what brand/type are they? I'm a proponent of using protective filters on some/most lenses in some/most situations, and others are not. This is a point of considerable controversy, almost forming the basis of two competing religions. However, we all have our reasons. And to my point, I think even filter proponents will tell you that the only protective filter worth using is a very, very good one. A cheap one will degrade your images, hence my question to you.</p>

<p>As others have said, you should almost never stack your filters (use them at the same time). And if you don't have a clear objective for a given filter (beyond some fuzzy concept of "to improve my pictures"), you probably shouldn't have it on your lens. Here's what the filters do:</p>

<p>UV: Sometimes used to protect a lens from dirt/grime/damage. Used in <em>film</em> photography to clarify a scene that has too much UV light (to which film is sensitive). Incorrect claims are often made that this filter also reduces lens flare.</p>

<p>Polarizer: Used either to cut or accentuate certain reflected light. Used to deepen/darken blue skies at certain sun angles. Incorrect claims are often made that this filter also reduces lens flare.</p>

<p>ND: Does absolutely nothing beyond making your camera/lens less sensitive, so that you can use a slower shutter speed and/or larger aperture after you've cranked down your ISO as low as it will go and are still overexposing. The related and much more useful "grad ND" lets you darken overly bright skies (top of the photo) while keeping the foreground (bottom of the picture) light. Incorrect claims are often made that this filter also reduces lens flare.</p>

<p>Use them as you need them, but remember that a cheap filter will degrade your photo, and each additional filter degrades it further. Even a stack of very fine filters can have some (albeit relatively little, but still noticeable) negative impact on image quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What order should I put them on the lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> One at a time. See http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/digital</p>

<p>I would first return the UV filter and get a refund. I would then take the ND and polarizing filters and put them away until a situation comes up where I need one of them. I would then take the 6D and 24-105mm lens and take some great pictures.</p>

<p>I use a UV filter at the beach during big wave season here on Oahu. After a season or two it's so scratched from cleaning off crystalized salt I toss it and buy a new one. I use a polarizer for product shoots and landscapes--to reduce reflections--and sometimes when I forget my ND filter while shooting moving water I want blurred. Like others have said, normally you only use one filter at a time. Stacking 3 filters will cause strong vignetting and degrade IQ considerably. </p>

<p>Hey guys,<br>

Thank you for your input, greatly helpful!</p>

<p>Ok, so here's my reasoning.</p>

<p>1. FOR THE ND. I do a lot of Action sport filming, Motor sports predominantly and Ive found the last couple of events that when shooting at 30FPS with a shutter speed of 60 I have to increase my stop to its maximum 22f as its so over exposed, onto of that, I really prefer a shallow depth of field so id prefer the aperture to be as close to my lens 4f as possible.<br>

Also, i'd like to ad I live close to a rain forest and would really like to get some slow shutter shots of rivers etc, Thats were the polorizer comes in I guess.</p>

<p>2. Often when im videoing/taking photos the sky does get washed out and I want to reduce reflections etc, As I said above, I have some water shots planned as well.</p>

<p>Now, the Filter I've brought weren't cheap, Both were B+W, to be more specific Ill add the links below:</p>

<p>https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=679&IID=8219<br>

https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1818&IID=8182</p>

<p>So in conclusion,<br>

Id like to use both the filter at the same time. Why? ND filter to reduce the stop to 4f (If I can) So my videos arent over exposed and the polarizer to increase the saturation of the sky/reduce reflections on the target im filming.</p>

<p>I would figure ND first then the Polarizer? Is the variable ND worth the extra cost?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The polariser is worth 2 stops on its own, and therefore is an ersatz ND when you also have unwelcome reflections, like a wet road.<br>

I forget how many stops your ND was worth, but put together with the polariser, would need very slow speeds.</p>

<p>Thanks for answering Jeff's question.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"FOR THE ND. I do a lot of <em><strong>Action sport filming</strong></em>, <strong><em>Motor sports predominantly</em> </strong>and Ive found the last couple of events that when shooting at 30FPS with a shutter speed of 60 I have to increase my stop to its maximum 22f as its so over exposed, onto of that, <strong><em>I really prefer a shallow depth of field so id prefer the aperture to be as close to my lens 4f as possible. . . </em></strong>Id like to use both the filter at the same time. Why? <em><strong>ND filter to reduce the stop to 4f (If I can)</strong></em> So my videos arent over exposed and <em><strong>the polarizer to increase the saturation of the sky/reduce reflections on the target im filming.</strong></em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I interpret your response, the above is the only scenario where you think that you need to stack two filters.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>I understand your point, but realistically how far are you from the cars and will F/4 make any substantial / real world difference to the DoF?</p>

<p>For example, you have a maximum FL of 105mm on a 6D, let's assume that the closest you get to racing car is 25 meters: at F/4 you will reduce the DoF to about 12 meters (which is still reasonable deep), but to do that (from F/22) you will need 5 stops of ND and that is also 5 stops darker in the viewfinder following the action.</p>

<p>I suggest for these racing car videos, that you try using only the CPL, it will have some ND affect anyway and at 1/60s shutter and ISO 100 in front lit bright sun, that CPL will get you to around F/11. Maybe you can get to F/8 by selecting ISO 50 in video mode, but I don't know if that is possible to do, or not.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks for your response guys.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, The ND Filter hasn't been shipped so I can change my mind if need be.<br>

The ND filter is also 10 stops, so pretty dark.</p>

<p>You guys think that the ND is excessive? Is it not worth the 80USD? Will the Polarizer be enough? im a bit new to the whole depth of field/Stop situation, not sure how to work it all out</p>

<p>Dane</p>

<p>[[not sure how to work it all out]</p>

<p>What are you trying to do?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The ND filter is also 10 stops, so pretty dark.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt that you will be shooting fast cars moving around a track with a 10 Stop ND Filter on your lens – I have an 8? Stop ND and it is very dark – here:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15390933-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /><br /> A ten stop ND filter can be very useful for many things, for example making the waves at the beach appear smooth if you are taking the picture on a bright sunny day.</p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You guys think that the ND is excessive? Is it not worth the 80USD? Will the Polarizer be enough? <strong><em>im a bit new to the whole depth of field/Stop situation, not sure how to work it all out</em></strong>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have already given my view and some detailed, typical examples on those points.<br /> To more accurately work out your DoF, you will first need to know how far away from the cars you will be shooting: but as mentioned, if you are 25 meters away then with an F/4 lens, even when zoomed to 105mm, the DoF is quite deep anyway - if you are further away from the cars, then the DoF will be greater.<br /> <br /> However, you really have nothing to loose just testing out using ONLY the CPL for your racing cars shots: if you don't like the outcomes then you can go ahead and buy the 10 Stop ND Filter and try it.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ive dropped the ND filter, Will Try the Polarizer out at the next even and see how it fares by itself, If I need the ND, ill re-order it :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From my video perspective:</p>

<p>Yeah, atm im shooting 1080p @ 30p with a shutter speed of 60 (as Ive been instructed to by many people), an ISO of 100(minimum) and on most days an aperture of 22f and its still a bit over exposed.<br>

I Figured a 10f ND would be able to drop the aperture to 10-12f and give me a bit more leeway to play with.</p>

<p>From my Photo Perspective:</p>

<p>I really want to get some river/waterfall shots, long exposures etc. Just worried the 10f ND will be too much? </p>

<p>Oh and in response to your question, Im generally around 10-15m away from the cars, so reasonably close I guess.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, atm im shooting 1080p @ 30p with a shutter speed of 60 (as Ive been instructed to by many people), an ISO of 100(minimum) and on most days an aperture of 22f and its still a bit over exposed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't understand. I use those settings, shoot the sky directly, and do not get any overexposure. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I Figured a 10f ND would be able to drop the aperture to 10-12f and give me a bit more leeway to play with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's unclear exactly what you are trying to say here, a 10 stop ND filter will drop the aperture from f22 to less than f1. Your lens doesn't get close, so if you are trying to maintain the 1/60 shutter speed, you're not going to get much.</p>

<p>Oh... I see what you mean now.. I Did not know the meaning of a stop but ive since done some reading. a 10f-stop ND filter is crazy dark, Probably not suitable for anything I need to do, if anything a 2-4 is more appropriate </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"a 10f-stop ND filter is crazy dark,"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure is 'crazy dark' - even darker than that 8 Stop ND, in the picture above!<br>

*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"for anything I need to do, if anything a 2-4 is more appropriate"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, that's why I suggested just using the CPL (if you were going to buy it anyway) - you'll get about two stops using that filter.<br>

*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, atm im shooting 1080p @ 30p with a <strong><em>shutter speed of 60</em></strong> (as Ive been instructed to by many people), an <strong><em>ISO of 100</em></strong>(minimum) and on most days an <strong><em>aperture of 22f</em></strong> and its still a bit over exposed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you have changed your story a bit here (maybe I read inaccurately) - I thought that you previously wanted a larger aperture for a shallower DoF, now your saying that: F/22 @ 1/60 @ ISO 100 is overexposing. <br>

I am with Jeff on this - I cannot understand any overexposure for most shooting scenarios in direct front lit daylight (EV15 using the F/16 Rule - ergo F/16 @ 1/60s @ ISO60 ≡ F/22 @ 1/60s @ ISO120).<br>

I expect that you might be getting specular reflections off car windows or water on the ground, but unless you are at the beach or on snow, your exposure for the car should be spot-on; if anything one third of a stop UNDERexposed. <br>

<br>

WW<br /></p>

<p>All of the above is correct, It was over exposing at times and I wanted a shallower DOF. <br>

Most my shots are at race tracks, All white (Sand, Walls, Railing and most of the time cars) except for the track surface itself it can get pretty light.</p>

<p>besides the point, Ill test everything out with my Polarized filter, should be fine, cant wait to try it out!</p>