Filter sizes, step up rings, etc.

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>I currently own a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 EF-S lens and a 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens. The filter sizes for both of these lenses is 67mm. I have had both for about a year now and have a UV filter for each and one ND filter. I will soon be purchasing the 10-22mm f/3.5-4 lens, with a filter size of 77mm, and a 50mm f/1.4 lens, with a filter size of 58mm. <br>

I have quite a few questions, as I'm really just a beginner to the wonderful world of filters. For my 10-22mm lens, I want to buy a Circular Polarizing filter, a ND filter, and a Grad ND filter. Also, perhaps a UV filter for protection. <br>

For my canon 50mm, the only filter I can think of buying now is an UV filter, again for protection.<br>

However, I can see the number of filters adding up in my bag... with the cost also going up. <br>

So, would you recommend me to get a step up ring for my 67mm and 58mm's? Also, if I buy a step up ring, is it universal for all smaller sized filters or are they specialized; i.e. one for 67mm-77mm, another for 58mm-77mm. I know the step up rings don't allow for the use of a lens hood, which I am pretty used to. <br>

Or, should I just take the plunge and buy filters for each lens?<br>

Thanks for any feedback</p>

 

[randall ellis]

<p>Purchase the filters in the larger size and then get a step-up ring to allow you to mount the larger filters on the smaller (diameter) lens. Step rings go from lens size to filter size, so you would want to pick up a 58mm to 77mm step-<em>up</em> ring. Keep in mind that the cost of the 77mm filters is far greater than the smaller 58mm filters.</p>

<p>As an alternative, you could get a Lee filter system, which uses 4x4 filters mounted in a holder which is then attached to the lenses, or one of the Cokin filter systems (likely the P system given the 77mm size) which work in a similar manner. This may reduce the cost greatly, depending on how many filters you are going to be buying...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I recommend a filter for each lens.</p>

<p>You will need a Cokin or Lee holder for the ND grad. You want to be able to slide it to move the grad. The round, screw in ND grads force you to put the horizon right through the center of the picture. Unless you actually live near waterfalls and do long daylight exposures on a daily basis, you're probably fine with an ND for the Lee or Cokin, too.</p>

<p>The lens hood is both the best protection you can get for a lens, and something that improves every picture (unlike the UV filter, which makes every picture a little bit worse. I'm not a big UV filter fan, obviously). Having your round filters in the proper size for your lenses allows you to use the matching lens hoods, which are typically petal hoods exactly matches to a lens. The matching hoods block twice the stray light of generic (round and too short) hoods. And they're a snap to use with filters, just screw the filter on through the hood, instead of screwing together adapter, filter, and generic hood. You'll also want to get a hood for the Lee or Cokin filter holder, either a bellows hood or the Cokin "modular" hood.</p>

<p>The polarizer is the most important filter, it's definitely the one where you want to get one sized to fit each lens. That way, you'll actually use it, instead of screwing around with adapters. I'm at the point now where I'm actually getting doubles on the 77mm filters for the polarizer and 80A, so that I can mount them up and be able to switch between 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 without having to screw and unscrew the filter and move it from lens to lens.</p>

<p>As far as a filter for the 50mm, I'd really advice against the UV. When you're shooting that lens wide open, it's most succeptibile to flare, and when you need it wide open, it probably means you're indoors, where you have lots of small sources of light to cause flare. You don't want a flare causing filter, and you do want to use the proper hood. You might look at a light balancing filter for the 50, for indooor use. You obviously shoot digital, since you're looking at the Canon 10-22mm. And yes, I know "digital cameras don't need filters, because they can adjusrt white balance". The technical term for that is "hooey". Canons aren't as strongly daylight balanced as Nikons, but blue filters still help under incandescent lights. On a Nikon, this does so much to even out the red and blue levels when you're shooting indoors under incandescent lights that you wonder how you got by without it. No more noisy blue channel, and no more blown red channel.</p>

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>Thanks for the answers <br>

In resposne to <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a>'s post, I've heard some stuff about the negative aspects of UV filters, but have been too hesitant to stop using it. I've always wondered if a lens hood is sufficient enough to be the only protection for the lens? I'm slightly hesitant to adopt it as my only protection due to my fears of an event arising something gets onto the lens, some sort of liquid etc., but please let me know if such fears are unwarranted. <br>

So, when you say "The polarizer is the most important filter, it's definitely the one where you want to get one sized to fit each lens. That way, you'll actually use it, instead of screwing around with adapters," do you mean that you keep the polarizer on most of the time, for general walking around work? If so, does the fact that the polarizer brings down the exposure one or two stops ever annoy you/hamper your work? One of the main reasons I keep a UV filter on is because it doesn't have a huge effect on my photos so it was a nice general purpose protective filter, or at least that I knew of :).<br>

Thanks for the responses! I really appreciate it .</p>

 

[randall ellis]

<p>You're moving into subjective territory here ;) Where I live (Florida) there is quite a lot of UV floating around, and if I'm shooting color film and not using a UV filter the colors don't look as good. If I'm shooting black and white (which I do much of the time) I don't worry about it. I don't think that I've ever damaged a lens (the cap provides better protection) so I've never considered a UV filter a protective device, but a lot of people seem to do so make your own call there.</p>

<p>As for a polarizer, <em>I</em> don't really ever use them - again, it's a subjective thing. If you understand how to use it and you feel that you will need one then get one. Personally, I have a polarizer that I have used to cut reflections in water on occasion, but other than that I don't have much use for one. Your experiences may be very different or very similar.</p>

<p>Lens hoods <em>can</em> be used with step rings just like with any other system by the way. They screw into the filter end if you use screw in filters (of any size), into the retaining ring of Series filters (which have much the same design as step rings), and there are hoods for the Cokin filter systems. Then you have the bellows lens hood, which covers even very large diameter filters - they often help and they have zero negative impact on image quality, so there is really no reason not to use a hood regardless of your filter method choice.</p>

<p>I would say do what <em>you</em> think is best, for your own reasons...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>One lens I have isn't cooperative using a step-ring (18-200mm Nikkor vignettes at the short end). Otherwise, I use one size of filter (77mm), and step-up adapters. I get extra 77mm generic lens caps and leave the adapter rings on the lenses. I rarely use lens hoods as I find it difficult to impossible to use a CP with a lens hood.</p>

<p>I keep a UV or skylight filter on my lenses unless I'm using a CP, shooting a sunrise or sunset, or shooting indoors in controlled conditions. Besides cutting haze, it's saved my lenses from scratch/chip/impact damage, splattered liquids, windblown dust/sand impingement, and generally saved a lot of cleanings.</p>

<p>The above advice about not using screw-on ND grads is good. I bought one, and it was a waste of money. I use both Lee and Cokin holders.</p>

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>Alright, thanks so much for all the responses!<br>

I think I'm probably going to use step up rings, but I'm not yet certain which filter I want to buy to fit all the lenses, UV or polarizer.<br>

Any advice? I am rather paranoid right now about gear, and don't really feel comfortable with just using lens hoods as protection, so, for now I'd like to have a filter on the lenses most of the time . </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>One other thing that has been confusing me...<br>

Why are the brand name step up rings SO much more expensive than the general step up rings? It's job is simple...is there really that much room for improvement between the two?<br />Also, I'm confused on which step up ring to purchase for the 50mm...<br>

if it's from lens size - filter size, would it be 50mm-77mm?<br>

Sorry for the stupid questions :) </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Jasna, I don't keep a polarizer on the lens for walk around use. Just when a scene needs a polarizer. A 1.5 stop light loss (and a dimmer viewfinder) isn't something I want 24/7.</p>

<p>I've never had a front element splash penetrate a lens without a filter. Generally the front of a lens is too tight to infiltrate. Any fluid entry I've seen (fortunately, not in my own lenses) has entered through a focus, zoom, or aperture ring. For "gunky" splashes, accumulated dust, etc. I always carry good lens cleaning supplies (a blower bulb, Pec-Pads, 3M Microfiber cloth, and ROR lens cleaner).</p>

<p>I only buy name brand step-up and step-down rings. I have several filters that aren't part of what I call the "big six" filters (polarizer, 80A, Neodymium enhancing, split grad, soft focus, and ND) that I frequently use with step-up or step-down rings. These include infrared pass, UV pass, aggressive UV blocking (B+W 415) for use with fluorescence photography, Canon 500D closeup lenses, etc.</p>

<p>I've encountered no-name step-up and step-down rings that had such poorly cut threads, or were in general cut undersize (on male threads) or oversize (on female threads) and would not stay mounted securely to lens or filter. Some were just plain sloppily cut, and jam easily. The B+W, Tiffen, and Hoya step-up and step-down rings I own do not have such problems.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Where I live (Florida) there is quite a lot of UV floating around, and if I'm shooting color film and not using a UV filter the colors don't look as good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Randall, I've found ROR to be an excellent lens cleaner, quite capable of removing any colored film that accumulates on my lenses. The colors for most films (fingerprints, etc) are actually an optical illusion, caused by the film changing the thickness of the lens's anti-reflective coatings. They don't contribute colors to the picture, just increased flare and ghosts.</p>

[randall ellis]

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>Thanks, but I don't really follow your comments. I didn't mention fingerprints, and the film cannot change the thickness of the coating. Perhaps you were refering to someone else?</p>

<p>- Randy</p>