So I'm reading a lot on lens filters, so my question to y'all is...do you use them?
And if you do, which do you use? Which filters should you never go without?
Do you always use them?
UV, ND, Polarizing...so many to choose from.
UV - protection only, really; doesn't affect the image much.
Polarising - really cool! Good for landscape shots involving sky/water. You can get all sorts of interesting effects and contrasty skies. See below:
ND - you can get fixed (e.g. ND2, ND4, etc, where the number indicates the strength) or variable. Good for daytime long exposures (e.g. of a waterfall), because it cuts the amount of light coming in. You must shoot on a relatively narrow aperture though (f/22 or so). See below:
FL - stands for "fluorescent" - makes colour tones under fluorescent light warmer. To be perfectly honest, I own one but have never used it.
Then there are bokeh filters, which are a whole other kettle of fish! If you own a wide-aperture lens, these can come in handy to produce cool effects with bokeh. :) See below:
I agree with everything @pocketmouse said, I'll just add a couple of things:
- ND filters can have a few different numbering systems. E.g. the B+W #110 is a 10 stop filter - incredibly dark (1/1000th of the light) but worth having a look at, I've seen some great shots taken with them and I recently bought one after finding my ND8 (3 stop) filter not really worthwhile.
- Many of the filters around aren't so useful in the digital age. Like the FL filter mentioned above, you can just sort those things with camera/software white balance. I wouldn't buy any coloured filter for that reason - just sort it in software.
@pizzaboy I have a variable ND (goes from 2 to 100 or something like that) which was only really useful at the largest value it could go the last time I tried it (which was in broad daylight, with a ~6 second exposure). Putting it on 2 or 4 or 6 just wasn't enough.
However, as I rotated the ring, I noticed this X pattern move across the lens as I went from highest (100) to smallest (2) (obviously to do with the different polarising layers moving across each other). Disappointingly, this X pattern appeared on a good proportion of my photos before I realised it was happening. I'm guessing this is only a problem with variable NDs? Is it with all of them or only poorly-made ones?
@pocketmouse I haven't used a variable ND but the fixed ones don't create any pattern. @bosschuster has a variable ND so maybe he can tell you if that happens with his?
Skylight filters I have just read absorb uv rays and add a pink magenta tone to skins and skies, but I think this is primarily a film filter, I could be wrong :)
Lots of people use UV filters to protect the front of their lens, but I recommend not doing this UNLESS you get a nice one. Cheap UV filters degrade images big time and can cause weird issues with light flares and such. If you get a nice one you are fine. I however recommend simply using a lens hood to protect your front element.
I'm a big fan of ND filters TJ. In fact, some of my best, or at least my favourite shots in any case, have been taken with my ND500 which is a 9 stop filter. Below are some shots I took with it and you can find some more from other people here:
As others have mentioned, get a circular polarizer filter and learn to use it. Especially if you shoot landscapes, etc. Not only are they great for skies and water, but they make greens pop. Pretty much any hard surface that casts a reflection can be improved with use of a CP filter. You can make reflections on windows go away, you can see through water to get a pic of that favorite Koi at the Koi pond. All kinds of neat uses.
I only have a polarizing filter and used it to get more saturated colors. For my new professional lens I didn't buy one yet, because it's over €100 plus with the latest DSLR's and latest Lightroom you have such great way to correct your shots, that it is not really important. The same goes for a gradient filter. Just shoot in RAW and not in JPEG! (In http://365project.org/djepie/365/2012-05-09 I show why)
Just for the grey filters (ND) there's not always a digital alternative. I found this out when I wanted to make a silken sea photo. Late in the evening I set the camera to ISO100 and f/22, but still too much light to make a photo with let's say 20 seconds exposure. Ofcourse you can wait till dark, but then you miss the colors in the sky. Finally I succeeded, but a ND filter would have been welcome: http://365project.org/djepie/365/2012-05-02
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Polarising - really cool! Good for landscape shots involving sky/water. You can get all sorts of interesting effects and contrasty skies. See below:
ND - you can get fixed (e.g. ND2, ND4, etc, where the number indicates the strength) or variable. Good for daytime long exposures (e.g. of a waterfall), because it cuts the amount of light coming in. You must shoot on a relatively narrow aperture though (f/22 or so). See below:
FL - stands for "fluorescent" - makes colour tones under fluorescent light warmer. To be perfectly honest, I own one but have never used it.
Then there are bokeh filters, which are a whole other kettle of fish! If you own a wide-aperture lens, these can come in handy to produce cool effects with bokeh. :) See below:
- ND filters can have a few different numbering systems. E.g. the B+W #110 is a 10 stop filter - incredibly dark (1/1000th of the light) but worth having a look at, I've seen some great shots taken with them and I recently bought one after finding my ND8 (3 stop) filter not really worthwhile.
- Many of the filters around aren't so useful in the digital age. Like the FL filter mentioned above, you can just sort those things with camera/software white balance. I wouldn't buy any coloured filter for that reason - just sort it in software.
However, as I rotated the ring, I noticed this X pattern move across the lens as I went from highest (100) to smallest (2) (obviously to do with the different polarising layers moving across each other). Disappointingly, this X pattern appeared on a good proportion of my photos before I realised it was happening. I'm guessing this is only a problem with variable NDs? Is it with all of them or only poorly-made ones?
http://365project.org/discuss/themes-competitions/11851/long-exposures-water
Also, different manufacturers use different ways to classify the filters so this link may be useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
Just for the grey filters (ND) there's not always a digital alternative. I found this out when I wanted to make a silken sea photo. Late in the evening I set the camera to ISO100 and f/22, but still too much light to make a photo with let's say 20 seconds exposure. Ofcourse you can wait till dark, but then you miss the colors in the sky. Finally I succeeded, but a ND filter would have been welcome: http://365project.org/djepie/365/2012-05-02