ND filter recommendations

lifesdisciple · November 27, 2006

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG 82mm lens and I am looking for a ND filter. A few questions.

1. Do I want 1 stop or 2 stops?

2. Is there a particular brand to look for or to avoid?

3. Should I get the screw on type or get a screw on filter holder and get the slide in fliter for the holder. Only thing with that option is I like using the hood.

4. And lastly, for mostly landscapes, waterscapes, sunrises, and snow scenes, is this what I want or do I want a circular polorizer?

Thanks for your time.:D

Antonio Correia · November 27, 2006

You want a Circular Polarizing Filter.
I bought one some two weeks and the results are excellent.
Mine is from Rodenstock.
It gives supperb results depending on the angle of the light.
You will not regret the money you spend.

Some examples ...

pathfinder · November 27, 2006

lifesdisciple wrote:

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG 82mm lens and I am looking for a ND filter. A few questions.

1. Do I want 1 stop or 2 stops?

2. Is there a particular brand to look for or to avoid?

3. Should I get the screw on type or get a screw on filter holder and get the slide in fliter for the holder. Only thing with that option is I like using the hood.

4. And lastly, for mostly landscapes, waterscapes, sunrises, and snow scenes, is this what I want or do I want a circular polorizer?

Thanks for your time.:D

You say you want a ND filter - but I suspect from your questions you may want or need a Graduated ND filter.

There is a big difference. An ND filter, is just a dark gray piece of glass that decreases the light passing on into your lens, without altering the color balance, and allows you to shoot with a longer, slower shutter speed. This is great to create flowing water shots in rivers and waterfalls. I would rec AT LEAST 2 or 3 stops or even more.

ND's can be screw in filters, but graduated NDs work better if they are rectangular and can be moved up and down in front of the lens as you look through the viewfinder, so that you can align the change in density with the skyline in the viewfinder. Graduated NDs are clear on one half and fairly quickly merge to a 2, 3 or 4 stop darker gray portion to adjust the light intensity between the sky and a darker forground.

A circular polarizer is a great filter to have, as Antonio has demonstrated so elegantly. You can use a circualr polarized and a graduated ND at the same time of course.

I like B&W filters, but they do cost more. The have brass threads rather that aluminum ones. Singh-Ray make nice filters also. They make a graduated ND named after Galen Rowell that I like.

Tiffen, Hoya, Canon are other brands.

lifesdisciple · November 27, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

You say you want a ND filter - but I suspect from your questions you may want or need a Graduated ND filter.

There is a big difference. An ND filter, is just a dark gray piece of glass that decreases the light passing on into your lens, without altering the color balance, and allows you to shoot with a longer, slower shutter speed. This is great to create flowing water shots in rivers and waterfalls. I would rec AT LEAST 2 or 3 stops or even more.

ok. i think i am understanding. so for sky reflections in water i want to use a Graduated ND so that the sky and the sky in the water look the same - as in color and exposure. correct?

an ND filter will help my waterfall pictures and flowing water. will a circular polorizer do pretty much the same as the ND?

and lastly, should i always have a filter of some sort on my lens to protect the glass? i know some agrue this by saying it's just another peice of glass to look through and some agrue that you should always have at least a uv filter on to protect your lens. what is your take on this?

thanks for your help and time. i greatly apprecite it. and thank you Antonio for your comments, advice and beautiful images.:D

pathfinder · November 27, 2006

A graduated ND helps to balance the exposure between the very bright sky and the darker forground at sunrise that otherwise would be beyond the 5 fstop brightness range the camera sensor can manage. It keeps the sky from blowing out.

A Neutral Density filter decreases the light exposure evenly to all parts of the image - it effectively 'turns down the lights' so that you can use a longer shutter speed outdoors in daylight, to achieve the 'flowing water' appearance.

A circular polarizer does cost about 1 - 1.5 fstops of light also (depending on how they are rotated ), so yes it can function like a weak ND, but good NDs are usually 3 stops or so. I carry a 3 and a 6 stop ND if memory serves.

I never use a filter to protect my lens from the environment, unless I anticipate salt water spray or blowing dust like at a dirt race track. I know that somefolks suggest a UV filter to protect the lens, but that is two more glass surfaces for reflection and ghosting, and image degradation.

I protect my lens elements by ALWAYS using the lens hood that comes with the lens. This is important - I saw a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L get a big scratch on its front surface in Antelope Canyon because someone did not keep the lens hood on the protect the front glass element. Ouch!!

I carry a circular polarizer and a two NDs in 77mm diameter. This fits most of Canon's L lenses like the 24-105, the 24-70, the 16-35 and the 70-200. If you have other lenses, you can use a 58-77mm adapter ring, or a 72mm-77mm adapter ring, depending on the filter diameter of the lenses you have. If you only need 58mm filters, they are significantly cheaper than 77mm filters.

I also carry a pair of rectangular Galen Rowell graduated NDs that fit in a Cokin holder if I anticipate shootng sunrise or sunsets.

Hope this helps

Antonio Correia · November 28, 2006

Pathfinder hello.

Super explanation about the filters.
I could not say the same but almost ...
It would take me much longer than to you. It's your native language.:D

I have never used Cokin filters - not even with analogic - because I don't like the way that degradation shade comes in the pictures.
I think it spoils the pictures.
Moreover, to apply Cokin filters one has to carry that adapter... One more thing to carry. My back holds now 7,5 kg. It's already too much.

If it was today I would not have bought the ND filter because the CPF does the same job ... better.

That's all by now.
I like to read your stuff Pathfinder.

pathfinder · November 28, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

Pathfinder hello.

Super explanation about the filters.
I could not say the same but almost ...
It would take me much longer than to you. It's your native language.:D

I have never used Cokin filters - not even with analogic - because I don't like the way that degradation shade comes in the pictures.
I think it spoils the pictures.
Moreover, to apply Cokin filters one has to carry that adapter... One more thing to carry. My back holds now 7,5 kg. It's already too much.

If it was today I would not have bought the ND filter because the CPF does the same job ... better.

That's all by now.
I like to read your stuff Pathfinder.

Antonio,

You do a vastly better job in English than I ever would hope to do on Portuguese.

I agree that rectangular filters in a Cokin holder are kind of a pain in the you know what. But there are times, at sunrise or sunset, when the difference in the light strength is such that you cannot capture it in one exposure without a graduated ND. If the subjects are stationary, I will usually take two exposures and blend them in PS, but if they are moving this will not be as effective as a graduated ND. I try to rememberr to leave these at home unless I really anticipate using them - sunrise and sunset, i try to bring them along. One Cokin adapter and a set of adapter rings fit in a Zip lock bag and do not take up that much room

A circular polarizer can help you get longer shutter speeds also, but I have had times when even at f22 I needed to slow the shutter speed down to several seconds - for this a 64X ND really shines. It is so dark that it is hard to see through.

I metered an exposure in the room I am posting in, with a Sekonic 358 incident light meter without any filter at ISO 100 -- 1/2 sec at f2. Through a CPL, it measured -- 1.2 seconds at f2.

Through my 64x ND, it measured 4 seconds at f2. That is the difference between a CPL and a real dense ND filter.

From Yosemite ISO 100 f22 3.2 seconds -- Fern Spring

lifesdisciple · November 28, 2006

so if i can only afford 1 ND filter for the time being. what #x would you recommend me getting for shooting mainly waterfalls and flowing brooks/streams? and a very nice picture you have there.:D

pathfinder · November 28, 2006

I think that was shot with a B+W #106 ND 1.8 64x

This filter reduces the exposure 6 fstops. You might prefer slightly less, like a ND.9 which only reduces the exposure 3 stops.

It should pop up in the B&H catalog online --- here

I should warn you, they are not inexpensive........ Hoya makes some that are a little more pallatable, but don't get your hopes up, they will still seem pricey.

lifesdisciple · November 28, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

I think that was shot with a B+W #106 ND 1.8 64x

This filter reduces the exposure 6 fstops. You might prefer slightly less, like a ND.9 which only reduces the exposure 3 stops.

It should pop up in the B&H catalog online --- here

I should warn you, they are not inexpensive........ Hoya makes some that are a little more pallatable, but don't get your hopes up, they will still seem pricey.

Can't seem to find that in an 82mm. the most I can find is a #102 ND 8x.

pathfinder · November 28, 2006

You missed some of them - there may not be an ND1.8 in 82mm - that's a biggun.

Here you are a Hoya 82mm ND.9 3 stops

lifesdisciple · November 28, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

You missed some of them - there may not be an ND1.8 in 82mm - that's a biggun.

Here you are a Hoya 82mm ND.9 3 stops

Awesome. Thanks. And its only like 60 bucks. thats not bad at all. Hoya is good?

pathfinder · November 28, 2006

lifesdisciple wrote:

Awesome. Thanks. And its only like 60 bucks. thats not bad at all. Hoya is good?

It will darken the available light 3 stops. The metal threads wll probably be aluminum rather than brass, but it should do fine for you.

60 bucks for an 82mm filter is a bargain.

lifesdisciple · November 28, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

It will darken the available light 3 stops. The metal threads wll probably be aluminum rather than brass, but it should do fine for you.

60 bucks for an 82mm filter is a bargain.

great. thank you for your help.

devbobo · November 29, 2006

lifesdisciple wrote:

great. thank you for your help.

Michael,

Filters are very addictive

I started out with some ND filters when I was shooting IR on my F717.

Now I have a B&W 10 stop ND filter....and a 3 stop GND and a 3-stop reverse GND filters from Singh-Ray.

The Singh-Ray filters are quite expensive...but worthy every cent imo.

Cheers,

David

pathfinder · November 29, 2006

Yeah, I tend to agree. I carry about half a dozen or so, including 2 CPLs, 2 Nds, a couple grad NDs, and a couple color intnsifiers from Singh-Ray also.

There's always something else to purchase

Antonio Correia · November 29, 2006

Today, as I was driving to work - and thinking about this thread - I thought that I would perhaps need a star filter.
Soon I will be shooting boys and girls in a studio for my daughter.
I thought that for the portrait of the girls I could use with advantage, a 4 star filter from Cokin for example to make the young women to shine.
Is that absurd ?

Suddenly all this sounds to me like something absurd because I could recreate the effect on CS2. Well, not exactly but ...

What do you think ?

The photos are not for glamour but to be present in clients, for them to see the young people and make contracts.
Thank you.

gluwater · November 29, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

Today, as I was driving to work - and thinking about this thread - I thought that I would perhaps need a star filter.
Soon I will be shooting boys and girls in a studio for my daughter.
I thought that for the portrait of the girls I could use with advantage, a 4 star filter from Cokin for example to make the young women to shine.
Is that absurd ?

Suddenly all this sounds to me like something absurd because I could recreate the effect on CS2. Well, not exactly but ...

What do you think ?

The photos are not for glamour but to be present in clients, for them to see the young people and make contracts.
Thank you.

I would use PS instead of using a filter like this. You can always delete a layer in PS but what is done in camera is much more difficult to remove if you dislike the effect.

Antonio Correia · November 29, 2006

Thank you.
That is in fact the most pratical solution.

pathfinder · November 29, 2006

Antonio,

I think Nick gave an excellent answer, and just convonced me to lighten my back pack by one start filter that I have carried for years and used only once or twice.

The ability to add a star in PS and control where and how it shows up is just too compelling!! Thanks Nick.

Antonio Correia · November 30, 2006

Pathfinder.

Look here how Swartly made that effect in the camera.

In that thread there is another picture by him, with that effect which I think is most effective.

I did not understand the expression he used of "crawling around" and I asked him to teach me.

But you do understand.

Today you have gained 200 grams on your back !

TylerW · November 30, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

It will darken the available light 3 stops. The metal threads wll probably be aluminum rather than brass, but it should do fine for you.

60 bucks for an 82mm filter is a bargain.

The aluminum threads (other than lacking a bit of strength) should be fine for a filter you don't leave on all the time right? Because the biggest benefit of the brass threads is that they don't 'stick' as readily with heat expansion of the metals and such, never leaving you with a hard to remove filter.

But if the filter is always coming off the lens, this isn't so much an issue, neh?

pathfinder · November 30, 2006

TylerW wrote:

The aluminum threads (other than lacking a bit of strength) should be fine for a filter you don't leave on all the time right? Because the biggest benefit of the brass threads is that they don't 'stick' as readily with heat expansion of the metals and such, never leaving you with a hard to remove filter.

But if the filter is always coming off the lens, this isn't so much an issue, neh?

Aluminum threads are usually not an issue, unless they stick and then they can be annoying.

I told folks in another thread here to grease them with grease from their nasal fold (along the side of their nose), and I think they thought I was nuts until they tried it. It does help prevent galling, and the threads binding. Brass is nicer, but B+W is proud of their German manufacturing

pathfinder · November 30, 2006

Antonio Correia wrote:

Pathfinder.

Look here how Swartly made that effect in the camera.

In that thread there is another picture by him, with that effect which I think is most effective.

I did not understand the expression he used of "crawling around" and I asked him to teach me.

But you do understand.

Today you have gained 200 grams on your back !

Swartzy said he did not use a star filter for the brdge shots - just a UV filter and a lens that tends to give stars with point sources of light.

The Christmas tree was shot with a Star filter.

I am not sure what Swartlz really meant by "crawling around" either whether he was on his hands and knees, or just joking in a colloquial sort of way.

I can deal with 200gms OK, it is the 30+ pounds of lens and tripod I am going to hate next week.

HarveyMushman · April 3, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

. . . An ND filter, is just a dark gray piece of glass that decreases the light passing on into your lens, without altering the color balance, and allows you to shoot with a longer, slower shutter speed. This is great to create flowing water shots in rivers and waterfalls. I would rec AT LEAST 2 or 3 stops or even more.

Should I assume AF speed will be adversely affected with a ND filter?

I ask because my primary interest is shooting motorsports, often under bright mid-day sunlight that forces very small apertures when using my desired shutter speeds. I'd like to force the lens to open wider, without changing my shutter speeds, so I can get less DoF.

Example:

pathfinder · April 3, 2007

Yup!!

I think it will depend on whether you are shooting with an f2.8 or an f5.6 max aperture lens.

If your ND costs two stops of light, the f2.8 will drop to an effective light admitter of f5.6 and AF will still work , but a bit slower.

If you steal two stops of light with an ND filter on an f5.6 lens, now you are down to f11, and AF may not be fuctional any longer, even in bright sunlight.

Can you go to a lower ISO? This is the same as adding an ND filter, in effect.

HarveyMushman · April 3, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Yup!!

I think it will depend on whether you are shooting with an f2.8 or an f5.6 max aperture lens.

If your ND costs two stops of light, the f2.8 will drop to an effective light admitter of f5.6 and AF will still work , but a bit slower.

If you steal two stops of light with an ND filter on an f5.6 lens, now you are down to f11, and AF may not be fuctional any longer, even in bright sunlight.

Can you go to a lower ISO? This is the same as adding an ND filter, in effect.

Thanks. I'm already at the lowest ISO (200 on my D70). I have a 2.8 lens to there's some room to work with there. But fast AF speed was one of the major reasons for spending the $$$ on the lens so I don't want to slow it down . . . Arg. I'll just have to work around the "problem," I guess, or just refrain from shooting certain compositions during mid-day.

ND filter recommendations

Comments