What filter size do you buy? (the one for your bigger thread or bigger than that?)

I want to buy two or three ND filters, especially for video.

Right now my largest thread of lens is 58mm. But it is not impossible that one day I buy another lens with a bigger thread.

Do you buy filters for your largest thread, o for a bigger one? The reasons for buying bigger ones would be: 1- In case you buy other lenses with a bigger thread in the future; 2- To avoid vignetting (really?).

I am not sure about the second reason, because if the filter is just a bit bigger, let’s say a 62mm for a 58mm lens, used with the appropriate adapter, I have the impression that there will be more vignetting than using just a 58mm filter (because of the increased distance to the lens produced by the adapter). And what about if the difference is bigger, let’s say a 77mm for a 58mm?

Yes, I could try the filter personally before buying. But if I buy online from a foreign shop, that is not possible.

A reason for buying filters of the same thread is that usually filters are more expensive when they are larger. And sometimes the difference is BIG. For instance, this filter B+W 58mm XS-Pro MRC-Nano 806 ND 1.8 Filter (6-Stop) costs $80 for 58mm and $180 (!!) for 82mm.

I do have a pretty large set of adapters to mount larger filters on smaller diameters, and even some going the other way (it's a long story); but -

all the same- most of my current filters are 58mm or 77mm, so I have a pretty complete set of filters in both sizes. I have a considerable collection of polarizing filters in some of the old standard diameters like 52mm for my older film cameras.

It's just so much more convenient to have the size that fits the lens(es) you use a lot. I have enough to do to keep track of all the gear anyway.

step-up ring

Once upon a time, camera manufacturers made at least some effort to keep to a standard filter size for the majority of their lenses.

For example, Konica SLRs are mostly 55mm, Zenit 49mm, etc.

Is there a common size in the lenses you use the most? If so, it makes sense to get a set of filters to fit that. Then maybe add large filters and step rings to cover anything else, but only as needed.

Using a larger filter combined with a step up ring should not increase the risk of vignetting, since, though the distance increases, the diameter does as well.

I use square filters in a filter holder/compendium shade. One size fits all.

Not as convenient, of course, as screw-on filters, but cheaper when you have a lot of lenses taking different size filters.

If you have no plans to get a lens with a bigger thread & it's just keep your options open the hassle of using stepping rings, not being able to fit the normal hood etc. is IMO enough to make it a bad choice. If this is your situation I'd certainly go for a 58mm filter.

If on the other hand you are hankering after an ultra wide, or faster lens there may be some benefit in going larger - but only if you know which filter would be right for this later purchase, and you feel it's a wish your likely to fulfil.

Shooting with full spectrum converted bodies I use filters quite a bit. I have lenses ranging from under 25mm diameter up to 96mm diameter. In addition some of the filters I use are only available as ultra expensive special orders in sizes above 50mm - for some of these I have to make do with 25mm & select lenses appropriately. So a one size fits all approach is just not practical for me. :) Fortunately several of my lenses with 37mm threads don't vignette noticeably with a 25mm filter fitted.

I have a range of preferred filter sizes & will generally use stepping rings to get to those. My current favourite sizes are 37mm, 52mm & 77mm but I admit I have lots of filters in other sizes being prone to trying out any cheap unusual filters I see no matter what size. Occasionally this will have me looking for better quality versions in my preferred sizes.

I rarely use filters on my very largest lenses except by simply holding a square filter in front of the lens.(not good for long exposures).This is partly from the cost issue you've highlighted.

Do you buy filters for your largest thread, o for a bigger one?

I am buying for "the bigger thread in that bag". OK I am most likely facing an extra problem by liking TLRs & RFs, which aren't really fun to shoot, if the backside of a 77(+x) mm filter to 46mm lens adapter ring blocks viewing lens or VF. Also: What about lens hoods & caps?

I know little about video production but I suppose if you ever get the bigger lenses, your current ones will end capturing B-roll at the same shot so you might need 2 filters in action anyhow? Wouldn't a bigger lens, if it is faster and purchased to shoot wide open, require a stronger ND filter than your current one (for video)?

To avoid vignetting (really?).

I own a Soligor 20/2.8 that doesn't play well with thick East German filters for BW. So yes, I might buy ultra slim filters for wide lenses. - Drawback with those: Less thread for the lens cap, to attach to.

If you plan purchasing a wide, ask in the appropriate forum which filters might go with it.

Sorry, I am a lazy black & white loving stills guy; my world must be different. I have a set of decent filters in 46mm and the UV+IR blocking ones in 39 & 46mm. I wouldn't know why to take heavier faster lenses out to shoot landscapes, in which I appreciate a hint of DOF.

For instance, this filter B+W 58mm XS-Pro MRC-Nano 806 ND 1.8 Filter (6-Stop) costs $80 for 58mm and $180 (!!) for 82mm.

Thats only the tip of the iceberg! You'll need the adapter ring, two 82mm lens caps (to loose one and still have one) a most likely not cheap lens hood solution, like a compendium shade for starters. And when you 'll finally feel able to afford your big lens, you might have already scratched that 82mm filter in between and feel an urge to replace it.

For instance, this filter B+W 58mm XS-Pro MRC-Nano 806 ND 1.8...

There really is no need for a fancy front coating on a 6 stop ND filter. You're absorbing over 98% of the light anyway, so what does it matter if a bit more gets reflected away from the front of the filter?

Single coating on the rear surface is desirable, but still not essential. True neutrality is more important, as is the thinness of the filter glass. Thicker filters will give more vignetting.

The best ND filters use a thin-film metal deposition as the ND element. Unfortunately this type of filter isn't common.

If the OP's need is for video, there are a couple of solutions. Many professional and semi-professional cameras have built-in ND filters. Dedicated video cameras also have the most used controls on the left side of the camera rather than buried in menus.

The traditional solution for cinematic video is to use a matte box with rotating square filters. A 4" matte box is large enough to fit professional video lenses with a 93 mm objective. You can use a matte box with smaller lenses with the use of flexible adapters, commonly called "nun's knickers." The downside is that matte boxes are much larger than the 4" size indicates, more like 6x8". Secondly they must be mounted on 15 mm or 19 mm rails, which in turn mount on a base or cage. Suitable filters are generally glass, with neutral absorption characteristics.

There are several consumer level adapters for square or rectangular filters with interchangeable mounts for different filter rings. The filters are generally plastic with loose adherence to color quality. On the plus side, some come with compendium lens hoods which can be adapted to accommodate various focal lengths.

As someone else noted, a step-up filter adapter usually prevents use of the hood that comes with the lens..

Just a thought. One solution is to use the Cokin-style square filters, holders, and adapters. This is especially useful for graduated filters which can be moved up and down. There are different sizes, and the larger ones are more expensive, naturally. For less critical work, there are cheaper knock-offs that are fairly decent in my experience.

Of course these make the problem of lens caps, hoods, and other thingies almost entirely unsolvable:(

Just a thought. One solution is to use the Cokin-style square filters, holders, and adapters. This is especially useful for graduated filters which can be moved up and down. There are different sizes, and the larger ones are more expensive, naturally. For less critical work, there are cheaper knock-offs that are fairly decent in my experience.

 

[ATTACH=full]1362840[/ATTACH]

 

Of course these make the problem of lens caps, hoods, and other thingies almost entirely unsolvable:(

Many photographers would class Cokin filters among the 'cheaper knock-offs' because all their filters are resin based.

My own experience of them is they generally work perfectly well unless they are very badly scrached.

There are hoods and caps made to go on these cokin mounts, not as useable as the typical OEM ones but not totally useless.

I've definitely seen light leaks round the back of filters in cokin holders, which is one of the reasons I prefer screw ons.

I've definitely seen light leaks round the back of filters in cokin holders

For video use, where I assume you won't be changing lenses every few minutes, presumably you could just wrap the whole thing in a bit of black cloth?

not as useable as the typical OEM ones but not totally useless.

Not my experience - Actually, I have "invested" in some of these.

For things like a red graduated filter that I don't use very often, I have bought the really cheap knockoff filters, and they are surely not so good as the originals, but plenty good enough to play around with.

:rolleyes:

Being made of a resin is not a bad thing. Being badly made of resin is.

My experience with cheap resin filters is that they are not always flat, but warped, and that both the colour and density of the resin isn't always the same within one filter.

With resin filters too, you can get perfectly good (and consistently so) ones, but those cost a bit more.

For video use, where I assume you won't be changing lenses every few minutes, presumably you could just wrap the whole thing in a bit of black cloth?

I 've only deliberatly shot video on two occasions. It's not a medium that appeals to me. Wrapping something around the back of the holder would be an answer certainly but i don't play with extreme ND often enough for me to sort it out, all my IR filters are screw types which don't need the fix.

I think the answer would be to use something that doesn't need something else wrapped around it.

And you of course do not need to shoot video to use filters in a filter holder or compedium. For expensive filters, it is the best solution. And when you need to get filters in a lot of filter sizes, it gets expensive rather fast too, so then too it's the best solution.