Filters?
Yes, I've read up a bit on filters but mostly when I was first making the transition to a dslr. Anyone care to share some info as well as advice. I remember having a few in my shopping cart as I placed my camera order then reading something about how cheap filters mess up otherwise nice shots. So hit with me anything but rotten tomatoes.
I mostly shoot indoors, natural light but also do some outdoors stuff. I have a very beginner collection of lenses and definitely not L glass. A 50mm 1.8, the kit lens and a 55-250mm (canon).
The disclaimer. I'm not a pro, I shoot my kids and for now some friends that I refuse to charge so I can do things at my very ADD pace.
I mostly shoot indoors, natural light but also do some outdoors stuff. I have a very beginner collection of lenses and definitely not L glass. A 50mm 1.8, the kit lens and a 55-250mm (canon).
The disclaimer. I'm not a pro, I shoot my kids and for now some friends that I refuse to charge so I can do things at my very ADD pace.
0
Comments
You will probably end up spending more money on lenses than bodies, so protect your investment with good quality "protection" filters (I like B&W for the quality).
Polarizers, GND, ND, etc are optional add-ons to your bag-o-tricks for later.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
If you want and can afford the best, buy B+W F-Pro multi-coated filters. If you want something just about as good at a lower price, buy Hoya HMC multi-coated filters. Do not shop at Ritz or Wolf Camera stores for filters, because in my experience everything they carry is cheap crud.
The next question is what filters you need. For expensive lenses, I usually buy a clear or UV filter to protect the front element. Sometimes this is also necessary for proper weather-sealing. However, for inexpensive lenses like the ones you mention, I don't bother. It isn't worth the price of a good filter to me to protect a lens that cost me less than $300 to begin with.
The protection issue aside, the other filters you are most likely to find interesting are the circular polarizer, the neutral density filter, and perhaps the graduated neutral density filter.
The circular polarizer filters polarized light, which has the effect of reducing glare, reducing reflections off water, rock, and similar surfaces, and increasing color saturation. Its effect changes as you rotate the filter. Learning to use a circular polarizer effectively can take a while, but is worth the effort. The downside of a polarizer is that it reduces incoming light by about two stops, requiring correspondingly longer exposures, so it's not something to use all the time. You will also see that some polarizers are described as "Kaesemann" polarizers. All this means is that the filter is designed to stand up under extremely harsh environmental conditions. Unless you plan to use the filter in the middle of an Antarctic blizzard, you probably don't need a Kaesemann filter.
The neutral density filter simply reduces incoming light without changing its color balance. The only reason to use one is when you want to use a longer exposure or a wider aperture than would otherwise be possible. When you see pictures of waterfalls where the water is severely blurred until it becomes a hazy, featureless flow, this effect is usually achieved with a neutral density filter and a long exposure. Neutral density filters come in various strengths; the weakest only reduce light by one stop; two- or three-stop NDs are probably the most common ones; but if you hunt you can find NDs as high as nine stops, which can be quite useful for the blurred-water effect.
The graduated neutral density filter is clear on one side, and a neutral-density filter (usually from one to three stops) on the other side, with a transition area in the middle. This is useful, for example, for bringing down the brightness of the sky without affecting the land. Some people these days don't bother with GND filters, and instead take multiple exposures of a scene at different shutter speeds, then merge the images to get results similar to, but more flexible than, what a GND filter can do. This merging can be as simple as using layer masks to fit parts of different images together, or using HDR (High Dynamic Range) tone mapping software.
You do not need color-conversion filters (which are essential to color photography with film cameras), because digital cameras takes care of that by adjusting white balance.
You will see that some filters are described as "slim" or "wide-angle" filters. This just means that the metal frame of the filter is narrower than usual to avoid causing vignetting with wide-angle lenses. With your 550D, you shouldn't need to worry about this unless you have a lens that goes wider than 18mm.
I can't think offhand of any other filters you would be likely to need, but I'm sure someone else will point out something I've forgotten.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
So I don't use filters any longer...
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
I've gone back and forth from using filters and no filters for years, done tons of tests to see if a filter could possibly harm my image quality OR my autofocus performance, but I almost see no difference and usually when I do see a difference it is in FAVOR of the filter.
That, plus I hate lens caps as an event photographer. They're just a terrible idea. So usually, I just leave my filters on 100% of the time, keep them clean, and I do just fine.
I've dropped lenses before and had a filter crack once, I would have definitely damaged the front of the lens, and/or the front element, if it weren't for the filter...
But to each their own. In my honest opinion, the decision is highly personal and based on your shooting needs. If you're going rock climbing, put on a filter. Otherwise, maybe you don't need one. Especially if you can make it a habit to always leave your lens hood on; a lens hood will protect your front element WAY better than any filter will...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=178002
one more to share is to standardize the diameter of filter collection. I try to buy lens with 77mm only (17-40, 24-105, 70-200, 100-400) so that I can only bring one set of filter for the trip.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
Lens caps prevent the sensor burning if somehow your lens gets pointed at the sun.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
I really appreciate the input. I can't do too much googling without changing my mind every 15 seconds or so and ending up in search engine rabbit holes of death. Already I'm having a crisis of conscience over the t1i vs. t2i.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Thanks. I'm definitely going to let this decision simmer just a bit then go to town shooting but I have one question regarding those bodies that I might post as a separate thread.
Loved your site by the way.
1) Take a picture.
Roak
<== Mighty Murphy, the wonder Bouv!
I have had filters get smashed on the lenses, and I've had lenses (nothing too expensive) get terribly scratched as well in the past. Filters seem like good protection.
Finally, I end up chucking the filters every few months and replacing them. Sometimes they get exposed to things like bug spray or other nasties that does a wondrous job to the filters. can't imagine what it would do to my lenses. I don't normally spend huge amounts of money on filters. But I do take them off at times, especially night, if it appears they are causing problems.
Istarted shooting pictures wen I was wearing (still) short pants, a half century+ after I still shooting pictures and the only thing I can tell you that except for the Uv and polarizer I never invested much money in filters.
Today cameras are amazing, what you do with today's cameras I wish I could have done "then." Try to learn what your camera can do and use the camera settings as much as you can. You do not need anything else.
Save the filters money for good lenses.
Good luck.
Some good advice has been given in this thread. The thing I most agree with is the notion that filters for lens protection are a personal choice.
My personal choice is not to use them.
A filter protects your lens from trauma that is great enough to damage glass, but not great enough to break the filter (and drive it into the front element). An unprotected front element subjected to that level of abuse could be repaired/replaced without replacing the entire lens. The cost of doing so would be > the cost of a good filter, but not enough more to make the filter good insurance (other factors not withstanding - you might want a filter in a high wind and sand environment where you are sure damage is going to result and you will discard the filter afterwards).
I find that being careful, and generally keeping the lens hood in place have allowed me to avoid any lens damage.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
I have taken a fall on a slippery slope in Aska which creamed my 40D camera however, using a lens hood there was no damage to my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I was not using a protective filter. The lens hood was destroyed but, the lens was in good shape. I replaced the hood with a Chinese knock-off for a couple of bucks.
I am not advocating the use or or non-use of a protective filter. I am simply recommending that when-ever and where-ever you are shooting, use a lens hood both for protection from flare and for physical protection of the lens...
There's more to it than that, though. Some lenses require a filter for complete weather-sealing. Also, there are some inconveniences other than impact damage that a filter can protect against. I remember one discussion about whether or not to use filters in which someone posted about a time he was out in the wilderness on a paid photo shoot when his lens got hit with a cloud of pollen from a branch that someone brushed against. He simply removed his protective filter and replaced it with another one. Without a filter, he would have had to pause the shoot and take several minutes to carefully clean the front element. You really don't want to waste a paying client's time for that sort of thing.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I have saved 3 lenses thanks to filters
Also beyond the simple UV I like using all sorts of square filters in my work, gradient ND's or colored etc.
I still use them, it's a necessity for landscapes. However, I've gone to the Cokin Z system. Buy a 4"x6" filter and use it with all my lenses and all I need is an adapter ring. In fact, I just bought a 105mm B+W KSM Circular Polarizer that will fit all of my lenses for $260. Try doing that individually and it would had run me $600-700. All I needed was the right part to mount it to the front of my Z system.
Just a thought, if you get really serious about your hobby.
measuring it found that it was only long enuff to hit the filter while the rubber lens hood was flexing from the downward
force of the falling camera and lens. the blunt piece of iron smashed the filter and all the tiny pieces of glass flew backwards
into the lens and scratched it beyond use.........
I have never used a filter since........
I do use the best lens hoods I can on all my lenses ( i make some of them my self using hard rubber video lens hoods and a filter ring).......
as far as dust on the front element or even pollen, that can be removed in a matter of seconds...it is not like it needs to a meticulious
cleaning job...most of the time, unless shooting at extremely small apertures, dust and other foreign objects will not show up on the image.......
Lenses attached to my camera are carried with a lens hood attached and nothing else..........unless I need a filter to produce the photo wanted or needed,
then it is a rectangular 4x6 inch filter that attached via holder system (cokin style) or I handhold the filter in front of the element, at which
time the lens hood is removed and after the image is made it the hood is remounted to the lens..........
I have not used a screw-in filter in over 20+ years
and have not had one lens get damaged from all the use I put them thru.....I shoot in wind, rain, sleet, snow...........so my equipment is used hard......but I also
have maintaince done on my equipment regularly........if it requires being disassembled then it goes to a service center for cleaning and lubeing....
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Will not even discuss the seat belt thing in an open forum......as I have known many a person that died while hanging upside down in a car and burned to death because the seat belt would not disengage.......I'lll pay my fine for not wearing one or I will go back to only riding a bike without helmet.........
As to filters.......if I rent a lens from borrowlenses and it comes with a filter....it will stay on...but I will not waste my money to buy a filter to put over my lens.......filters do degrade the image.....even the over priced B-W and Heliopan...........special effects filters are the only filters I will use......You will never convince me that filter will actually protect my lens better than a good lens hood will.......
Sorry, not really a good analogy there. Search around online, you'll also find MANY instances of filters damaging lenses because they get frozen onto the lens threads. Heck, they even make special tools to remove frozen filters!
I still don't buy needing a filter to protect a lens. Not saying it can't protect it, just saying I don't think it is likely enough for me to worry about it.
I understand certain filters for certain effects but I don't use them for protection.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog