Which filters to get?

[walter_p]

<p>I know it is hard to answer this question but I was thinking to get this kit of Hoya filters <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/408019-REG/Hoya_GIK72GB_72mm_Introductory_Filter_Kit.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/408019-REG/Hoya_GIK72GB_72mm_Introductory_Filter_Kit.html</a><br>

I plan to use it with Tamron 18 - 270mm lens which I understand is not the greatest lens but it is very convenient lens. Right now I am shooting with 50D.<br>

Are these filters going to affect the quality of photos greatly when used with the lens mentioned above?</p>

[bob_himmelright]

<p>doesn't look like they are multicoated, so I'd steer clear. Also, you really don't need a warming filter with digital....or a uv filter unless you're in an area with blowing sand/dust. For that price, get a decent polarizer instead like: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116782-REG/Hoya_A72CRPL_72mm_Circular_Polarizer_HMC_.html or used.</p>

[jerrymat]

<p>Well I think every lens is worth having its front covered against dust, etc. Once in my life I had to throw such a filter away because it was damaged, but I was thankful it was not the front element of the lens that received the blow. A plain glass filter would do but you can't find one so I use a UV filter. Since UV light does not affect the digital sensor it does nothing to the picture. It is also handy if you want a series of pictures that have a faint soft focus effect. To get that just blow your breath across the glass filter and it will cloud over - you can take a series of pictures and keep the one where the vanishing cloudy effect is just right.<br>

I agree that a polarizing filter would be necessary, but I find I don't use one as often on digital as I did on film, because so much after processing to get an effect is available. In fact I don't think the PF is that necessary for skies anymore, just to stop reflections.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Just get circular polarizing and a uv to use in extreme conditions. I have L lenses do are supposed to control lens flare quite well, but when I shoot wide open at night and a bright light gets in the way, I almost always get flare. Problem solved when I stop using uv filters. To protect the lens, I go with lens hood only.</p>

[mars c]

<p>I hope this dont erupt into , filter vs. no filter, hehehehe.<br /> Yes it,s gonna affect the photo quality, like adding flare or reducing sharpness, but to a very small degree if you use the expensive ones.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Re Mars' comment: you asked a perfectly reasonable comment, but this topic ignites religious wars on this site.</p>

<p>A circular polarizing filter is very useful. it is essential if you are shooting in a location with excessive glare, and it can be used for other purposes as well--for example, to give a little more contrast to blue skies. I almost always carry one in my bag.</p>

<p>I have never used a warming filter with a digital camera. I don't own one.</p>

<p>In terms of the religious wars, my default is to leave a UV on every lens for protection. A hood does nothing to protect against spray, for example. I have had filters ruined before, which means I have had lenses saved. Not long ago, a few of us did a bunch of test shots and posted them here. The bottom line was that if you don't have the light source in front of you, a good UV filter will not produce appreciable degradation. If you have a light source in front, any filter can increase flare and haze, as Angel said. If you use a multi-coated filter, this problem is reduced. I used Hoya HMC and S-HMC UV filters for that reason. I do the opposite of what Angel does: I leave them on until there is a reason to take them off.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>I too was of the "protection filter" school for some years until I got into better and better glass (pentax 67, Fuji GW series, Rolleiflex 3.5F) until I actually did some testing. If you're paying premium prices for good glass, why add another surface to a lens that's already been optimized for best performance?</p>

<p>I realize that this isn't a MF forum, but that's where I can see the difference due to the lower resolving power of MF lenses.</p>

<p>Digitally, there's this recent post:<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00V1nG</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

TH</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you are going to get filters, get high quality filters that match or exceed the quality of your lenses.</p>

<p>Depending upon <em>your photographic interest</em> , with DSLRs there are a few types of filters that <em>might</em> be useful to have:</p>

<ul>

<li>Circular Polarizer (CP) - Useful for several things: reducing reflections from certain surfaces like water, glass, foliage. Can increase contrast between sky and clouds in some situations. Can be used as a "quick and dirty" neutral density if you want to increase exposure time a bit or use a larger aperture.</li>

<li>Neutral Density (ND) - These "neutral density gray" filters reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor letting you extend exposure time or use a larger aperture in bright conditions. The former can let you play with motion blur and the latter can let you control depth of field. These filters come in different grades that block varying amounts of light.</li>

<li>Cokin or similar Graduated Neutral Density (GND) - These filters are mounted in front of the lens using (somewhat awkward) holders. They are half clear and half neutral density with a boundary that may be relatively sharp or more gradual. They let you decrease the light from part of the scene (say the sky) while letting all the light from darker areas reach the sensor. They are useful for certain high dynamic range scenes.</li>

</ul>

<p>Of these, the most likely to be useful - depending upon your photography - is probably the CP. The other two are somewhat more specialized. None of these would be left on your camera all the time.</p>

<p>I am not a fan of <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not">UV "protective filters"</a> for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[michael_ziegler2]

<p>I only use a CP or a graduated ND filter. Never use a UV filter as it detracts from the lens.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>My thoughts are with G. Dan Mitchell exactly. As for protection...thats what a lens cap is for. Others will have a differnt opinion on that. If conditions are bad enough that protection from the elements (sand, salt spray, etc.) are necessary, then I would not want to subject the camera body to that either. Big deal...I keep the camera bagged.</p>

<p>Two things will never change. 1. Salesman will pawn off filters as a must have item. 2. Photographers, particularly the ones with poorly coated filters, will continue to ask why they are getting strange reflections or vignetting with their filters and wonder why?</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Long ago and far away I had a couple frames of Kodachrome 25 shot with a super-fisheye with an amazing amount of depth of focus. Just for the sake of proving it to myself, I put a cheapo huge filter (MC) an the front of it and lo and behold, you could read the manufacturer's focal length and max aperture reflected off the huge front element, bounced off the back side of the filter and onto the lens. I stopped using protection filters at that point and realized that lens caps are made for that purpose.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Regardless of the filter wars issues, the only filters needed for digital, as a general rule and as said above, are the polarizing filter (an effect which is difficult at best to duplicate in post-processing since actual reflections are eliminated from co-operating materials) and a decent "protection" filter (UV or clear) to use at least in unfriendly environments.</p>

<p><em>Warning, what follows <strong>is</strong> part of "Filter Wars: Return of the IQ" controversy</em> :<br /> I think there is abundant reason that you should stay away from the dollar-bin filters, but I know of no hard, double-blind testing evidence that decent brand-name multicoated filters aren't just as good as the "high-priced spread". In this case, I think that the absence of evidence is probably evidence of an absence of difference, since if they were so much better, it would be simple for the top, expensive lines to get an independent testing organization to provide scientific testing of the differences in image quality.</p>

<p>Why aren't these tests being done by either the companies or journalists, I ask? I would guess that the tests have been done, and did not produce results that were useful for marketing $200 filters. All we really have is anecdotal accounts.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am with Dan - the ND Grad is probably the most useful filter for the landscape photographer - get a square filter kit for this such as Cokin. You can save money by buying Coking filters and Chinese made adaptors - I have bought rings and filter holders from RJ (jinfinance on ebay) and while not as good as the Cokin ones they work fine and are much cheaper. for the filters get Cokin or similar. For a DSLR the P series will be the size to get. The ND grad reduces the light for half of the frame - the most useful ones being 1 stop and 2 stop (3 stop tends to be rather obvious). They come in hard or soft edges (i.e. the transition from clear to Neutral density) and i find soft to be the more useful in most situations. When you have a scene with bright sky and dark ground they even up the light to reduce the range of brightness between the two. This means that the camera is able to correctly expose both without either over exposure or under exposure of part of the scene.<br>

If you want to get the cliche type water shots (where moving water looks like smoke) or feel the need to get longer exposures then ND filters are useful. If you go with a square system e.g. Cokin get the NDs in square.<br>

I am a big fan of UV / Skylight filters on my lenses for protection purposes. In some cases (e.g. the 16-35 f2.8 II) I often remove the filter with the lens cap when I shoot. For digital the main use of a UV / Skylight filter is to protect the lens. I am very careful with my lenses but take them into harsh environments and regard the UV filter as a cheap form of insurance. In the past 25 years UV filters have saved two lenses from significant front element damage (falls / bang on rock) and have probably prevented a few minor scratches. The need for these filters is a peace of mind and environment thing.</p>

[arthur_reyes1]

<p>The filter debate. Gotta love it. A recent experience of mine. I was at the beach with my 100mm macro. Was taking various shots at the shore line, around rocks further up from the shore, etc. After about an hour I looked at the lens filter and it was filthy. The air around beaches tends to be sticky and humid so the filter had a nice layer of crud on it. I was simply able to take the filter off in a protected spot, cleaned and replaced. There's no way I'd want that stuff on the front element of my lens. One can be ever so carefull cleaning the front lens element, but it only takes on tiny piece of dirt to ruin that front element. That filter has been on it and cleaned several times and is looking like its time to replace it. I'd rather replace the filter than have a scratch on a lens element permanently. To me its worth the insurance piece of mind the filter provides. There's a time and place for a protection filter. At the beach, sure. If I'm indoors, I'll most likely take it off--less risk of lens getting filthy.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>This is an old debate and has been covered many times here. Do a search. But in short, a decent filter will not degrade your photos shot in daylight or in good light. The non coated ones can create some ghosting in night time shots. So if you'll be shooting night scenes use multicoated. Other than that dont' worry about it. The only filters that are needed for digital are UV or protection, Circular Polarizer and ND. Maybe some special effect filters like stars but you can also acheive that with small apertures. A decent filter valued at around $50 is comparable to the value of a single glass element in the lens.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I should have added that I do not use GND (graduated neutral density) filters. Since I work from a tripod I prefer to make multiple exposures at different shutter speeds and then combine the exposures in post - this gives me a great deal more control than the GND can.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>My motto is, Circular Polarizers, Yes. UV filters, NO!</p>

[walter_p]

<p>Is Hoya Pro1 DMC filter a good quality one? I think it is Multicoated, not sure what else to look at.</p>