What filter to buy?

ALXBWSCREW

ALXBWSCREW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
1,693
Location
Germanistan
Car(s)
Fiat Barchetta, Alfa Romeo 156, Opel Zafira
Well the question doesen't get more complicated that the thread's name so what do you guys suggest? I want basically a filter that's quite cheap and can deal with most situations in pretty good. As I know absolutely nothing about them, I'm asking you: what filter should I buy?
 
All filters can be used for many different things, so if you do specific shots most of the time, then it can be difficult to advise a best one. However it is good to have any filter, as they protect your couple-of-hundred-*currency*-lens. They really do work so if you drop it (obviously you will not be a retard and drop it at any point, but better safe than sorry) it will break the filter, but not the lens.

I will say that my favourite is a Circular Polarizer. It basically is used to darken blues in the sky, and generally boost colours, and remove reflections in windows (like on cars etc).
 
Last edited:
Speedtouch said:
They really do work so if you drop it it will break the filter, but not the lens.
Click to expand...

*BZZZ* Ohh, I'm sorry, that's not the answer we were looking for. A filter will not help in a fall. There's very little area there to take the fall rather than the lens, a filter is rigid, and the glass will break and possibly scratch your lens' glass. Lens hoods are what helps in falls, since they'll flex and soften the impact. Protection from dust/poking things with your lens ? protection from a fall.

You could always get a set of colour filters and be a black-and-whitefag.
 
There's more than a few anecdotal stories available online where filters have protected the front element of a lens in a drop. And I can attest to their ability to do just that having dropped one lens twice breaking two separate filters with no damage to the lens. Most filters do not break in a way that will do lasting damage to your front element, and it does help mitigate the force of the drop by having something too break.

And could you please lay off with the attitude? For someone who asked Epp to not be condescending (in a post with no condescension) you're talking down your nose quite a bit. The cynicism and sarcasm are becoming grating.
 
Ok, Circ-Pol but can you be more specific? What model should I buy? I need if for a 52mm lens.
 
ALXBWSCREW said:
Ok, Circ-Pol but can you be more specific? What model should I buy? I need if for a 52mm lens.
Click to expand...
b+w is one of the best brands for (circ-pol)filters, but expensive. less expensive are Tiffen filters. I use them, and don't see much difference with b+w-users.;)
 
Jeroen. said:
b+w is one of the best brands for (circ-pol)filters, but expensive. less expensive are Tiffen filters. I use them, and don't see much difference with b+w-users.;)
Click to expand...
I've found the cheapest Tiffen at 45 euros :blink:. That's way out of my price range (I live in Germany). Is the brand so important?
 
ALXBWSCREW said:
I've found the cheapest Tiffen at 45 euros :blink:. That's way out of my price range (I live in Germany). Is the brand so important?
Click to expand...

if 45 euros is the budget, then I think it will be difficult to find a polfilter. and, how more expensive, how better the quality (that's with most products!);)
 
Different filters do different things. If you're looking for a basic set of filters, the first must-have is a Circular Polarizer for deepening blue skies (increases contrast between clouds and clear sky) and reducing surface reflections. These are rotatable filters; you rotate them until they create the desired effect.

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/09/29/2009-09-16_Leaning.jpg

The sky would have been washed out and dull had I not used a polarizer


Neutral Density filters are probably the next thing you want. They are used simply to darken the entire frame. The result is that you can use wide apertures in bright light or use slow shutter speeds in bright movement to display movement. These come in varying levels of darkness from slight to very heavy.

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/09/29/Burn_out_Truck.jpg

Using an ND filter is the only way I was able to get a shutter speed low enough in mid-day light to be able to smooth out the smoke and show spinning tires. As I recall, I also used a polarizer stacked beneath it to darken the sky and reduce reflections on the truck itself.


I also have a Graduated Neutral Density filter. This is an ND for half (or more, or less) of the frame, while the rest of the frame is clear. They can also differ in the hardness or softness of the transition between dark and light. This is useful mainly for landscapes. I currently have a basic circular one, but it's usefullness is quite limited. If you are getting one (or more) of these, I suggest something like a Cokin rig, which lets you shift filters up and down to change the point of transition. I'm looking into getting one soon.

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/09/29/2008-09-03_Old_Shed_in_the_Blistering_Sunset.jpg

My grad ND filter allowed me to show the unique character of the sky within the exposure, while avoiding underexposing everything else (or, conversely, without overexposing the sky)


As far as how much to spend? Eh... I can't bring myself to spend more than $10-$15 on a little piece of glass. Some people claim that it robs sharpness, contrast or colour rendition, and that may be the case, but it's nothing that can't be corrected in post by sacrificing a tiny bit of cleanliness (vs. noise) and I doubt my D40 (or a D60) is capable of even resolving high enough to see any sharpness discrepancy anyway.

EDIT: oh, yes, and "clear", "sky" and "UV" filters. I don't spend more than a few dollars on these either. First all, UV filters are not necessary for digital SLRs. All of their lenses and/or sensors are already protected against UV. But, otherwise, you can still use UV, skylight or clear filters purely as physical protection. Replacing a filter is cheaper than replacing a lens in the event of a drop or scratch.
 
Last edited:
Now that's what I was looking for. Thanks epp, thread can now be locked if an admin is bothered to take a look.
 
Ramseus said:
*BZZZ* Ohh, I'm sorry, that's not the answer we were looking for.
Click to expand...

:dunno: I work at a camera shop and we do have a good fair number of people coming in with a smashed filter and no damage to the lens. The only lens I've seen with damage from being dropped had its focus rack completely buggered.
 
phuckingduck said:
There's more than a few anecdotal stories available online where filters have protected the front element of a lens in a drop. And I can attest to their ability to do just that having dropped one lens twice breaking two separate filters with no damage to the lens. Most filters do not break in a way that will do lasting damage to your front element, and it does help mitigate the force of the drop by having something too break.
Click to expand...

Speedtouch said:
:dunno: I work at a camera shop and we do have a good fair number of people coming in with a smashed filter and no damage to the lens. The only lens I've seen with damage from being dropped had its focus rack completely buggered.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof from either of you that shows that the wafer-thin glass used for filters can somehow absorb the rather large amounts of kinetic energy accumulated by a falling lens. A bit of common sense applied here would show that filter glass is so thin that it can protect from only the slightest of bumps. I use a protective filter in adverse conditions such as sand, dirt, molten rubber, etc. and they do great for keeping crud off the lens, but never for a second have I considered a UV filter to somehow offer shock absorption. A lens hood will cushion and protect a falling lens far, far better than a filter possibly could. It's just physics.

And no, "the filter broke but the lens didn't" is not proof of shock protection, it just proves the filter glass is extremely weak and could not absorb the impact energy.
 
Last edited:
epp_b said:
I also have a Graduated Neutral Density filter. This is an ND for half (or more, or less) of the frame, while the rest of the frame is clear.
Click to expand...

I call those the Top Gear filter, since they very much abuse them. :lol:
 
BerserkerCatSplat said:
I'd like to see proof from either of you that shows that the wafer-thin glass used for filters can somehow absorb the rather large amounts of kinetic energy accumulated by a falling lens. A bit of common sense applied here would show that filter glass is so thin that it can protect from only the slightest of bumps. I use a protective filter in adverse conditions such as sand, dirt, molten rubber, etc. and they do great for keeping crud off the lens, but never for a second have I considered a UV filter to somehow offer shock absorption. A lens hood will cushion and protect a falling lens far, far better than a filter possibly could. It's just physics.

And no, "the filter broke but the lens didn't" is not proof of shock protection, it just proves the filter glass is extremely weak and could not absorb the impact energy.
Click to expand...
Most filters have some sort of resin either below the glass or in between elements that helps to hold the glass in place once it's been cracked. Best parallel I can think of off the top of my head is the difference between plate glass and the safety glass of a windshield, filters being the latter. At least, that's my experience in their construction having broken two of them. Maybe a $5 UV filter is just glass.

There's still a sudden shock from impact, and having a removable piece of metal and resin to bear the brunt of the impact helps. Maybe shock absorption isn't the best term, abuse absorption might be. You're not just going to be dinging up the front filter ring of the lens, instead it will be the filter which you can then take off and replace. It's still very possible to damage the mechanics of the lens, but the front element and filter ring (etc) will not be damaged.
 
phuckingduck said:
Most filters have some sort of resin either below the glass or in between elements that helps to hold the glass in place once it's been cracked. Best parallel I can think of off the top of my head is the difference between plate glass and the safety glass of a windshield, filters being the latter. At least, that's my experience in their construction having broken two of them. Maybe a $5 UV filter is just glass.
Click to expand...

No filters that I know of are safety glass or resin-coated, as that would compromise the optical properties of the glass. They just shatter and cover your front element with sharp glass fragments that can scratch your coatings.

There's still a sudden shock from impact, and having a removable piece of metal and resin to bear the brunt of the impact helps. Maybe shock absorption isn't the best term, abuse absorption might be. You're not just going to be dinging up the front filter ring of the lens, instead it will be the filter which you can then take off and replace. It's still very possible to damage the mechanics of the lens, but the front element and filter ring (etc) will not be damaged.
Click to expand...

Again, what resin? The glass just shatters everywhere and absorbs no energy. Yes, the filter's metal threads MAY protect the filter ring (and even that is far from guaranteed), but we're back to a situation where the lens hood will do a far better job as it takes pressure off the ring entirely and absorbs it into the hood's flexible plastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top