Filter Systems

[kent_hilburn]

I just ordered the Canon 40D with the 29-135 package and a 10-22 lens. I'm now

looking for a good filter system. Can someone give me an idea on if I need

filters and if so, what do I need. I will be shooting landscapes mostly. The

reason I ask is because I just don't know what software packages like Photoshop

elements can do since I have been out of photography for so long. I used to

own a polarizer and a few warming filters. I think they were light orange and

maybe a soft purple. Hope this makes sense. Thanks for any help.

[JDMvW]

There are filters and there are filters. The ones like the filters you have already are 'screw-in' filters and they are usually the most convenient. If the lens you just bought is the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, then it takes 72mm screw-in filters. You'll also want a lens shade if you didn't get one (Google "EW-78BII" and you may find some non-Canon versions). Unfortunately, your 10-22mm takes 77mm screw-in filters. However, the most economical course for filters you will use sometimes is to buy the 77mm filters and a 77>72mm stepdown ring that will let you use the 77mm filters on the 72mm size lens.

 

The other kinds of filters are those generally called Cokin-type filters. These use a bracket type holder and the filters themselves are rectangular bits of (usually) resin. Cokin's website explains these in detail, and you can also find information on the B&H website. The Cokin-style filters come in different sizes, but the broad coverage of the 10-22mm lens means it is difficult to mount filters without their coming into the picture (this is true to a lesser extent of screw-in filters as well). There is a huge size holder but it and the filters it holds are much more costly, so you may want to try a trimmed down version of the P holder. The holder uses slip in rings to attach to the lenses, so you'll need to buy both 72 and 77mm rings.

 

A polarizer is good, but the older linear type may not work well with modern digital cameras and may affect AF, etc. "Circular" polarizers are recommended, and you will probably need to buy new ones anyway. Polarizers are also not as effective on wide lenses for reasons I won't cover here. As a result, to darken sky and so on, you will want Cokin-style graduated Neutral Density (ND) filters. They also come in tints to make sunsets, etc. Color correction filters of any kind are not much needed in the digital age, since both the camera and the software will allow these sorts of corrections (read the manuals).

 

I need to run, so I'll let others finish up this advice with suggestions for other types of filters such as diffusion and so on.

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

the stepdown rings don't allow you to use yoru lens shade when used on the 72mm lens. Carry Less, shoot more...Just get a good UV filter in the proper sizes for each lens, the rest of your "filters" IMHO r better done digitally now. Shoot a great clean exposure, and filter it in photoshop later. J

[saskphotog]

My advice is to buy no filters until you find a legitimate need for one. Then buy very good quality (that means expensive). The only one you will need from the ones you listed is a polarizer, and that is for only special situations.

 

Go shoot some pictures. Think about filters much later in your equipment collecting.

[dan_hall4]

I have a 40D and it came with the 28-135. I upgraded to a 24-105. My lenses are Canon 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400. All are 77mm. I would give some thought to what lenses you may add in the future before getting filters. As mentioned above, you could use a stepdown filter ring. I actually have one (brand new) that I will mail to you if you want it. Email me and I will mail it to you. I gave my 28-135 to a relative that had no need for 77 mm filters. If you have any interest in getting better lenses, you may very well find that they are 77 mm. That would make it wise to get 77 mm filters now to use with the 10-22 and use the 72/77 mm step up ring on the 28-135. That way your new 77 mm lenses would be able to accept the filters. I have a Hoya Pro 1 DMC polarizing filter and love it. I also got the Hoya Pro 1 UV filter to keep on the 24-105 and 100-400. I am researching ND filters now. See my post in the nature forum. It was just put on there last week and is near the top of the list still. I am leaning towards getting the graduated ND Galeen Powell type Singh Ray filter. Perhaps a 3 stop. Still not sure. Those are rectangular in shape and require a holder. The Cokin holder I am told is good for this. More insights are on my thread about ND filters in the nature forum. I would definitely suggest you get a high quality circular polarizer. I love the Hoya Pro 1 DMC. While nearly $200, it is slim so it does not vignette with the 10-22, it has front threads so it can hold the standard Canon lens cap. Aside from the high quality digital multicoated glass, the other feature help set it apart from many other CP's. Heliopan and B&W have a very loyal following as well. Cheaper filters are not advised from what I have been told. Adding a UV filter (a high quality one of course) is a matter of opinion. I like to have the extra protection on my lenses. And the 24-105 (and many other L lenses) are not water resistant without using a UV filter. Additionally, if you like landscape/sunset/sunrise images, you may very well benefit from a graduated ND filter. Two stop and three stops are what I hear the most about. Some like the hard and some like the soft (graduated). I guess it depends on what you are shooting. I am just now learning more about this myself so that I can make an informed purchase. Lots of info on the Nature forum. Also search old post with ND, graduated ND, etc.. in the title box. The Singh Ray website has some good info as well. Be sure to go to the website Luminous Landscapes. Google will find it quickly. Tons of articles/reviews there. Lots of Canon specific info on lenses and such.

[dan_hall4]

"I love the Hoya Pro 1 DMC. While nearly $200, it is slim so it does not vignette with the 10-22"

 

I should add that it depends on how much polariztion you use and what side of the focal range you are on. Generally speaking you should not use a CP on ultrawides as it makes the sky polarize differently across the top. However, I have seen this much less than what I had been told. I have captured several shots with the Hoya CP on my 10-22. I just did not want to give you misleading information. Others will certainly tell you not to use CP on ultrawides. It is my opinion that the Hoya Pro 1 changes these rules a bit. Below are some images taken with the 10-22 and Hoya Pro 1 DMC. The views from the airplane, the church, and the bridge are the ones taken with them. These were from a trip in coastal Maine about two months back. This will at least give you an idea of what the CP and 10-22 can do together. I am brand new to all of this myself so much better results could obviously be obtained.

 

http://www.flickr.com/gp/21144083@N02/4H9r41

 

Below are some pics taken with my 28-135. Since you have the same camera/lens, I thought I would post these as well. You can click on "view slideshow" in the upper right or click on the individual images. You can open to fullscreen by clicking the "all sizes" button above the individual images you open. All shots had the color/saturation/etc.. increased some in Photoshop Elements 6.0. I don't know how to use these controls yet so with some skill much better results could be expected. This is a great program for editing images. I am just now learning how to use it some. It is about $80 and can store all your images and edit them of course. I just got a book the other day, "Photoshop Elements 6.0 for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby. I got mine from Barnes and Noble online. It was just released. You could get Photoshop Elements 6.0 and this book and be in great shape in no time. It is a very easy to use program from what I can tell. The book explains things in a very simple to understand fashion. I advise this highly.

 

http://www.flickr.com/gp/21144083@N02/Td6243

[kent_hilburn]

Dan,

 

The skies are so blue. Does using a polarizer make it easier to get that color with Photoshop elements software? I'm not sure I understand why you need both.

[kent_hilburn]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I am planning on going out and doing some shooting first before I buy any filters. Again, I'm just getting back into this and I'm still not sure how computer software and filters interact. As you guys mentioned. I might only need the software in todays environment. Also, I understand UV and how it effects the body, but how does it effect the camera? I'm not sure I'm following?

[dan_hall4]

You can't reproduce the effect of a polarizer with PSE 6.0. You can of course make the skies blue. The images I took with the polarizer and the 10-22 had very little (if any) post processing. The images from Nantucket had much more color/contrast added to the images. You can read up on polarizering filters here on the forum via the old post. Lots of info. As far an UV filters, I am told by some that they don't effect the image, some say the do slightly improve image/effect colors, but I choose mine to protect my lenses. An $80 filter is cheap insurance on $3,000 worth of lenses. Others will argue this of course. For sport if nothing else.

[dan_hall4]

I thought it would be worth adding, you can reproduce the effects of many filters with software these days. You will still find it useful to have a circular polarizer. This is by far the most popular filter. If landscapes are of interest, a graduated ND filter may take top honors after the CP. A ND will be needed for waterfalls and such if you like the flowing look. Other than the CP, and various ND filters, you can get similar effects that other filters offer using software. What you need to think about is if you are wanting to spend time taking pictures, or time playing on the computer. I like the "get it right in the camera" approach but I am willing to do some work with RAW to learn how to get the most out of my post processing time. But I do not want to develop a workflow that keeps me on the computer for hours after every shoot. You will be spending considerably more time behind the computer if you are not careful. Some people like that. I would prefer to spend time with my camera. To each his own.

[dan_hall4]

One last thought, get a tripod. A good one! It will do more for you than anything mentioned yet. I got some good shots with the 28-135, but it is a slow lens. A tripod will be very useful and allow you to get the best possible images. I am sure you already knew this as you mentioned photography in your past. I got my first DSLR (Canon 40D) just a few months back. I remember being told getting a tripod would improve my images more than anything. Who ever that was, thank you!

[dan_hall4]

"Other than the CP, and various ND filters, you can get similar effects that other filters offer using software"

 

Before someone jumps on this, I am told you can reproduce the effects of graduated ND filters by shooting different images where you expose for the foreground in one and expose the sky in another, blah, blah, blah. I would ask you to find out how long it takes to do all that in the software and compare that to the time needed to put on a graduated ND filter. These are the kinds of things to think about before buying software (or filters). Many ways to skin a cat in this digital age. Some just better than others. And some take more time and energy.

[JDMvW]

You say "step-up" I say "step-down", the difference is that you are right. As Camerafilters.com puts it "Adapter rings are labeled from the camera to the filter. "

 

It's a 72>77 step-up adapter that you would need, of course.

 

Your lenses are good enough that you should not buy trash, but I would avoid going the other extreme and putting $10,000 of specially made 'mag' wheels on a nice family sedan. If the prices of the filters are a significant percentage of the cost of the lens, maybe you're going overboard. I haven't been able to find tests that actually detail just how much different kinds of filters really affect the optical quality of the assemblage. If anyone knows of such, here or elsewhere, I, for one, would appreciate a url. A Google here yields many hits, but all I looked at were either hearsay or pure opinion.

[lester_wareham]

You might want to read this http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/Protective_Filter_FAQ.htm.

[kent_hilburn]

I think I'm starting to understand. Thanks again everyone.

[JDMvW]

Lester, that's a useful link, but on the key question of whether it makes any real optical difference, it's "some photographers believe....". Somebody in an earlier thread on this site referenced a Shutterbug test; but I'm not sure that a magazine that continues to run ads from scam artists is the best source. I don't remember seeing it anyway. Nor have I seen any discussion that I remember in other magazines. I would have thought our own Bob might have done something here, but I can't find it, if he has. Nor do I see it on my other favorite site, the Photozone.de. Again, maybe I'm not searching for the right words. I have read about some lenses where the manufacturer has suggested a front filter for weather sealing (but why didn't they just build it in?).

[trebor_navilluso]

UV for protection.

Polarizer (everyone who understands light needs one of these.

Maybe a couple ND's 2 stop and 4 stop.

And perhaps a graduated ND.

 

That's it. Everything else can be done in PhotoShop.

 

Get good or at least decent ones like Hoya, Tiffen. Stay away from really cheap ones. B&W brand may be overkill for you if you're just starting out.

[lester_wareham]

Lester, that's a useful link, but on the key question of whether it makes any real optical difference, it's "some photographers believe....".

 

Check the FAQ, there are lots of real tests there. The bottom line as far as I am concerned is with good filters the best lenses mostly flare before the filters and there is no detectable loss of resolution or impact on AF accuracy.

 

However the FAQ tries to present a "balanced" view.

[JDMvW]

Well, I guess I only went to the section with the title, but the conclusion you state seems reasonable enough given how little things like dust and scratches actually seem to harm image quality (at least as badly as you would expect).

[sarah_fox]

Kent,

 

There are a lot of responses here. I haven't read them. It's quicker to add my comments, even if they're redundant with what others have written:

 

When you're going to use Photoshop, there are not many filters at all that would be helpful to you. Anything you put in front of your lens is going to degrade optical quality. Cheap filters will utterly destroy the quality. Excellent filters will have negligible deleterious effects. However, considering that there is always a quality cost to a filter, you should not use a filter unless you cannot achieve the purpose in another manner. With that in mind:

 

If you have a lens you want/need to protect, get a GOOD UV filter to keep mounted on it. IMO, the Hoya Pro-1 is the best. The Hoya HMC would be my next choice. A Kenko multi-coat is an acceptable filter that is a good value.

 

You might want a polarization filter for landscapes, as there's no way Photoshop can sort out light polarity from a digital image. A linear polarizer will mess up your auto-exposure, but you can tweak around that problem manually. It has one less layer than a circular polarizer and operates more efficiently. It's also cheaper. However, a circular polarizer is more popular and may be available in more desireable varieties.

 

Split/graded neutral density filters sometimes help to even out exposure before it is encoded, helping you to capture more usable dynamic range in your photos -- especially landscape. Layering or HDR methods are perhaps better solutions. You can google them.

 

Neutral density filters can help you to adjust "sensitivity" downwards, so that you can use longer exposures and/or smaller apertures.

 

None of the above can be achieved with PhotoShop (well, except HDR and layering of two or more exposures). Everything else can be. So don't use filters to do anything other than the above. Use PhotoShop techniques instead. It's cheaper, it's more reversable, and it's optically better.

[dan_hall4]

Yeah, what Sarah said. Well put!

[kent_hilburn]

Thanks Sarah. Believe it or not, some of this is coming back to me after I read the posts.

[mwtphoto]

just to add to the many good comments. I agree that UV, circ polarizer and ND are the filters most commonly used. I would just like to add the Hoya Moose's Polarizer filter it is a combination of a circ polarizer and a warm up filter. It is great for landscapes with trees and greenage in it. Polarizers tend to make the greenage look slightly blue or cold and the Moose's filter gives the foilage a more natural look. IMHO.

[sarah_fox]

Oh, BTW, www.filterhouse.com. I just ordered a couple myself. New baby on the way, expected to come in at 23.6 oz, 77mm filter thread. Due date, Monday. ;-)

[alan_myers]

Kent,

 

The most difficult filter to replicate well in Photoshop or other imaging softwares is the Polarizer. As a landscape photographer, get one of these. It's useful to deepen the blue of the sky, reduce reflections off foliage to help saturate colors, cut reflections off water and more.

 

I somewhat disagree with getting it for your wider lens first, though. As a rule, polarizers on super wide lenses tend to give too dark (almost black) or uneven/splotchy effects in the sky. If you get one, use with care!

 

I think you will find one for your 28-135 more useful and would give you plenty of opportunity to try it out, if you only want to buy one now. If you are prepared to buy two - they aren't cheap - go right ahead. But I agree it's best to get one to fit each lens (77mm on one, 72mm on the other.)

 

You might need a slim filter for the 10-22. I really don't know. However, some slim filters don't have front threads, so you can't put a lens cap onto them, which I don't think is a good thing!

 

Note: If you are coming from film and manual focus cameras, yes, you do need to get a Circular Polarizer. The old linear polarizers of the past are still available, but certainly will mess up auto focus and possibly even auto exposure on your camera. This is unfortunate because the old linear polarizers were more effective and it was easier to see their effects in your viewfinder. Oh well, that's life.

 

I recommend Hoya Pro 1, B+W MRC or Heliopan SH-PMC filters specifically. Multi-coating is critical, for best image quality. All these are good quality and multi-coated (at least I know the MRC and SH-PMC are, double check, but I think all Pro 1 are multi-coated too).

 

These are all fairly expensive, especially in larger sizes and especially Circular Polarizers, which are more complex than most filters.

 

I don't think you really need to go to the next level of price, like the B+W Kaesemann Circ-Pol, which is even more expensive.

 

I do not recommend installing a UV filter and leaving it on all the time. I find it pretty silly to expect a thin piece of glass to provide any real protection for your lens. There are times a filter is detrimental to image quality.

 

It *might* be a good idea to get a UV filter for occasional use, if you expect to be shooting in dust storms, at the seaside in the salt spray, or take lots of photos of sticky fingered urchins and wet nosed puppies. In those cases, yes, a "protection" filter might be a good idea.

 

Yes, I do carry UV filters (B+W MRC) in sizes to fit all my lenses for just this sort of thing. But I only install them when I am nervous that the front element of the lens is in real danger.

 

Instead, get the proper fitted lens hoods for both lenses. Use them. These protect a lens better than any filter can. They also can only improve image quality, by shading the lens from off-axis, stray light.

 

One downside to the lens hoods on those particular lenses is that I'm pretty certain you will find they'll get in the way of the built-in flash of your camera. (I know it will on the 28-135, and am guessing the same is true of the big hood on the 10-22.)

 

Actually, this is a hidden blessing... It's a really good excuse to buy a much better, accessory flash like a 430EX or 580EX II, a flash bracket and an off camera shoe cord. The built-in flashes are sort of a joke: Wimpy and located just about the worst possible place to cause redeye and ugly shadow effects.

 

Other useful filters for landscape work:

 

1. Neutral density: This is a screw-in filter. It comes in various grades, but the point is to force lower shutter speeds, for the popular purpose of blurring water in a stream or the ocean, making it look sort of "creamy". In the old days of film, we could just get a 25 ASA film. Now the lowest ISO of your camera is 100, so you might want one of these if you like the effect.

 

By the way, the Circular Polarizer cuts well over a stop of light, too, so can sometimes be useful in situations where you want a slower shutter speed, too.

 

2. Graduated neutral density: These are half gray, half clear. The purpose is to balance out bright sky with darker fore and middle grounds.

 

Actually, you can replicate the effect several ways in Photoshop and some other imaging softwares, but some people just prefer to use them at the time the shot is taken, and be done with it. It's up to you, whether to use a filter or learn to handle the "tricks" in Photoshop.

 

I'd recommend not getting screw in Grad ND filters. Think about it, will your horizon line be at exactly the same place in every shot? I hope not!

 

Instead get the rectangular type that allow you to move them up and down or rotate them as needed, to match the horizon line.

 

Cokin is what I'd recommend to start. You'll need their "P" or "Pro" series on lenses with such large diameter. You get an adapter ring in 72mm an 77mm, and a filter holder clips onto that. You can also add a modular lens hood if you wish. But, some people just hold the filters in front of the lens by hand, and shade it all with their hat. Crude, but effective.

 

Cokin offers two "Graduated Grey" filters. Get them both and see which is most useful to you. Later, if you find one or the other is particularly useful, or want something else entirely, you can get better quality Lee or Singh-Ray filters to fit the Cokin P series holder. Lee also makes an "accordian" style lens hood to fit the holder, which might be useful.

 

3. That's it. You don't need any warming or color correcting filters at all. Between the camera's white balance controls, shooting RAW, and processing in Photoshop, there's little else you need.... Unless it would be some sort of special effects like stars or soft focus. (Even those can be replicated in your computer, but may mean buying additional software or Photoshop "plug ins".)

 

Even the UV filter is no longer really necessary, in that digital cameras adjust for excessive UV, too. A clear "protection" filter would actually be fine. But these are just not made yet in any of the high quality filter lines, as far as I know.

 

Cheers!

 

Alan