Filters?

[Rew]

Hi all,

A quick question to the knowledgeable and any help much appreciated.

I am hoping to get out and use the Camera a bit more this year, especially when I finally get round to ordering a computer that can handle CS5 as my laptop protests. Not shooting anything in particular, just whatever takes my fancy. I am thinking about filters but have no idea if I am wasting my money. Some say UV, some polorised. Is it worth me investing in one and what would you recommend? What would I gain? Based on the below lens, is it worth getting a better qaulity one or would that be overkill?

The camera is a Canon 40D and the lenses are Sigma 50mm F1.4 prime and the Canon 24 - 105mm F4 IS L series. Both have the 77mm thread for a filter.

Rew

[RobDickinson]

UV is pointless.

Polariser is a live saver at times. Look at a square grad too , hitech 85 or 100mm 3 stop soft or hard to get started.

Been a few threads on filters recently.

[Ari]

I'm interested in filters too so keen to hear any thoughts and suggestions.

[Rew]

RobDickinson said:

UV is pointless.

Polariser is a live saver at times. Look at a square grad too , hitech 85 or 100mm 3 stop soft or hard to get started.

Been a few threads on filters recently.

Thanks Rob. Is the square filter set up instead of the screw on circular polorised or an addition? I have seen the Hitech 100mm holder and 77mm adapter.

Edited by Rew on Saturday 5th January 22:17

[RobDickinson]

I wouldnt use the square filters with a cpl mounted on the lens, but I do use a screw on cpl on the front of my lee setup.

85mm/cokin style one fits into the holder.

[richwig83]

Dont just go buying filters willy nilly. What is it that you want to achieve that you cannot achieve without a filter?

[CommanderJameson]

I got a 100mm Formatt Hitech kit (holder, 77mm adaptor and 0.6 ND hard grad) for the specific purpose of getting skies under control.

I think a 0.6 ND is also on the cards, for bodacious sunrisage/sunsettery.

I couldn't justify the expense of the Lee kit, nice as it undoubtedly is.

[Rew]

Thanks all,

I think the main reason I want one is for reducing the glare out of a lot of shots and really bringing out the depth and colours in the sky. Having looked at various photos on the net, its the circular poloriser that I am looking at getting. The difference it can make to some shots is significant.

So, what are my real options?

I could get a decent screw on 77mm poloriser and that would fit on my current lenses plus it would also fit on the Sigma 10 - 20mm I am thinking about getting. However, I may well be getting other lenses in the future, ideally something with some more zoom.

The other option is the Lee holder set up and also buy the circular holder for the front. I could then buy an 105mm circular poloriser and screw this on the end and with different adapters, it will fit most future lens puchase. This would also allow me to by some grad filters and F stop filters so I can do some long exposures shots. Would just fitting the poloriser on the Lee give me just as good a shot as fitting one to the end of my lens?

Any suggestions ?

[CommanderJameson]

A circular polariser on a 77mm diameter lens needs real care in its use.

If you're not careful you end up with uneven polarisation across the image and it's nigh-on impossible to fix in post.

Can you tell that I've been bitten on the bum by this?

If you're trying to knock down the sky a couple of stops whilst exposing the foreground properly, an ND grad is what you want, not a CPL.

[markmullen]

CommanderJameson said:

A circular polariser on a 77mm diameter lens needs real care in its use.

If you're not careful you end up with uneven polarisation across the image and it's nigh-on impossible to fix in post.

It is the focal length which is the concern rather than the filter thread size, on the OP's 10-22 a blue sky if not careful will end up with unpleasant uneven skies due to the wide field of view.

CommanderJameson said:

If you're trying to knock down the sky a couple of stops whilst exposing the foreground properly, an ND grad is what you want, not a CPL.

This. As I often shoot ultrawide (17mm on full frame) I rarely use a CPL unless I particularly need to cut through reflections in water, on rocks etc, if I want a bluer sky I'll use a grad to darken it a little.

[DibblyDobbler]

markmullen said:

As I often shoot ultrawide (17mm on full frame)

Call that ultrawide!? Wait till I get my 16-35 going on my 6D!!

Mwah-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....













Sorry - getting a bit excited

[K12beano]

Reducing glare from certain surfaces does invite the use of polarbearising filters, this bear would agree. definitely.

But for wide angle shots and lots of sky I think you need to be careful. Polarised light, by its very nature, is coming at you from different angles that are most noticeable when you start going wide on focal length/angle of view and while a polariser will make a difference you might be better off starting out with blended exposures and a little careful PP. I know many around here will champion the ND grad, and I can't fault that, but IMHO it's easy just to bracket a couple of shots rather than fiddle around with a couple of extra air/glass interfaces with all the inherent dust and flare not to mention the trouble in aligning your grad and dealing with horizons which aren't a simple straight line.

A polariser is not quite the simple panacea that it might seem, but in the hands of the skilled it can be useful. I'm not a smart enough bear, so I only use mine very occasionally, and not at the 17mm end of my favourite 17-35mm (full frame FX).

[markmullen]

K12beano said:

I know many around here will champion the ND grad, and I can't fault that, but IMHO it's easy just to bracket a couple of shots rather than fiddle around with a couple of extra air/glass interfaces with all the inherent dust and flare not to mention the trouble in aligning your grad and dealing with horizons which aren't a simple straight line.

Each to their own but I much prefer grads to exposure blending in PP, particularly on moving things like waves. Good quality filters like Lee don't suffer from flare very much at all, dust isn't a problem if you keep them clean, aligning them is dead easy with liveview and DoF preview and horizons really don't prove much of a problem, it is certainly quicker to dodge a little bit that gets filtered by accident than it is to blend several exposures.

[CommanderJameson]

markmullen said:

CommanderJameson said:

A circular polariser on a 77mm diameter lens needs real care in its use.

If you're not careful you end up with uneven polarisation across the image and it's nigh-on impossible to fix in post.

It is the focal length which is the concern rather than the filter thread size, on the OP's 10-22 a blue sky if not careful will end up with unpleasant uneven skies due to the wide field of view.

Yep, that's what I meant (should have typed it then, Jameson, you doofus).

For the avoidance of doubt for the OP, here's what a CPL does when used improperly:


Power To The People by Peter Whysall, on Flickr

Canon 10-22mm lens at 10mm.

[Rew]

Thanks again all,

I have heard of issues with the wide angle lenses, such as the Sigma 10-20mm and that a very thin poloriser is best. However, would I have these issues on the Canon 24 - 105 and Sigma 50mm F1.4?

[markmullen]

Rew said:

Thanks again all,

I have heard of issues with the wide angle lenses, such as the Sigma 10-20mm and that a very thin poloriser is best. However, would I have these issues on the Canon 24 - 105 and Sigma 50mm F1.4?

Although there is a degree of an issue with mechanical vignetting with ultrawides (eg the edge of the filter is in view) the main issue is with them covering such a wide field of view that the degree of polarisation effect varies across the frame, see CJ's shot above. Whilst a thin CPL will help with mechanical vignetting it will be just as susceptible to the variable skies effect seen above.

Your 50mm will be fine, on a crop body (I'm assuming a crop as you're using the 10-22) the 24-105 should be fine but I would experiment before doing anything critical.

[Rew]

markmullen said:

Your 50mm will be fine, on a crop body (I'm assuming a crop as you're using the 10-22) the 24-105 should be fine but I would experiment before doing anything critical.

Thanks Mark, the Body is a Canon 40D and the wide angle lens I was looking to add is the Sigma 10-20.

[markmullen]

Rew said:

Thanks Mark, the Body is a Canon 40D and the wide angle lens I was looking to add is the Sigma 10-20.

Cool, it is a crop body then, so you'll be absolutely fine with the 50mm and I'm pretty sure even the 24-105 won't cause issues. The 10-20 is the one where you might encounter problems.

[anonymous-user]

A CPL filter has been one of the best things I've bought.

They are actually extremely useful in automotive photography by removing the reflections, glare and shine from a car's paintwork and glass, giving a much more pleasing look. I would post some examples but I'm not on my computer right now.

One thing to watch though, there are CPL filters and CPL filters... I bought a bog standard Hoya one from Jessops and it is absolute turd, frankly. It hardly makes any difference at all when applied and rotated.

I then bought a Hoya HD Pro-1 CPL in 77mm (just because I needed an ultrathin one) and the difference is like night and day. As soon as you put this one on the camera and rotate it you can see the difference right away. Quite amazing. The reflections from cars just disappear and the sky deepens into a blue a lot better.

Edited by NinjaPower on Monday 7th January 13:50