# Filters - how important are they?



## arcanej (May 8, 2012)

I can understand the need for / point of polarizing filters, but how necessary / useful are filters for everyday shooting?


----------



## newjerseykita (May 8, 2012)

THIS! SOMEONE ANSWER THIS, i have nearly all L glass and i have no filters, what should i get and why!?

24-70, 70-200 2.8 is usm MARK II, 50 1.4, what filters and why?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2012)

Many filters are designed/needed for film, few are useful for digital. IMO, the useful ones (i.e. effects cannot easily be replicated in post) are:


Circular polarizing: cuts reflections, deepens skies, etc. 
Neutral density: longer shutter speeds to blur motion (waterfalls, waves, etc.)
Graduated ND: compensate for differential brightness of sky vs. ground (can sort of be done with HDR)
Clear or UV: protection (some L lenses require a filter to complete the weather sealing)


----------



## RJSY (May 8, 2012)

+1

what neuro said....

and if you're looking for a recommendation on what brand.... B&W is tops...


----------



## imkev (May 8, 2012)

Was wondering about what filters to get myself. Thanks guys...


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

In terms of image looks the only filter that cannot be added in pp is the polariser

For adding DR then grads can help a lot. I often use blue and red grads

The rest as neuro said


----------



## bycostello (May 8, 2012)

RJSY said:


> +1
> 
> what neuro said....
> 
> and if you're looking for a recommendation on what brand.... B&W is tops...



i'm a hoya fan


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many filters are designed/needed for film, few are useful for digital. IMO, the useful ones (i.e. effects cannot easily be replicated in post) are



+1 ... I've got clear b+w protection filters on my lenses with no iq drawbacks - some lenses even require a filter for full sealing. I'd like to add that polarizers mostly don't work with wide-angle due to too different angles towards the sun. I thought grad filters are analog old-school, but after what briansquibb wrote maybe I should think again? How often do you use them (for static scenes I'd just do hdr or exposure fusion, that's when IS comes in handy, too)?

It's a pity polarizers & nd are so expensive for 82mm - but I guess if I get the Tamron 24-70, there's no way around it. Shooting water/glass with a polarizer is extremely useful, and bulb with nd is great too.


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> +1 ... I've got clear b+w protection filters on my lenses with no iq drawbacks - some lenses even require a filter for full sealing. I'd like to add that polarizers mostly don't work with wide-angle due to too different angles towards the sun. I thought grad filters are analog old-school, but after what briansquibb wrote maybe I should think again? How often do you use them (for static scenes I'd just do hdr or exposure fusion, that's when IS comes in handy, too)?



ND Grads are good in that they can reduce the DR of the scene, therefore allowing better details to be captured.

The traditional use is to have a scene with a bright sky and dark grass/trees etc. In summer the bright sky totally overpowers the ground, so you end up with blown out sky or near black ground , depending where you are metering.

By adding a grad with dark at the top and light at the bottom you reduce the light coming from the sky whilst not affecting the light from the ground - which means you can capture detail in the sky as well as the ground as the by reducing the sky light you are reducing the DR of the scene - by several stops. This means that in this case a 5DIII + ND Grad would be able to capture the same detail as a D800.

I like using ND grads for low light street scenes where the dark part reduces the light level of the street lamps

I also have used 2 together, blue and red for sunsets on the sea. I put the dark red on the sky and the dark blue on the sea - gives spectactular colouring.

I use Cokin/Lee filters


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 11, 2012)

I am not a fan of filters, i keep my lenses clean and covered when not shooting.

I had a Tiffen Polarizer on my 17-40 f4 years ago, and did not like the reduced image sharpness. Sold the filter (and the lens eventually). However, I have been considering the B+W 82mm Circular Polarizer for my 16-35 f2.8 since getting my 5DIII. Reason for the renewed interest is since getting the 5DIII I have been using the 16-35 for primarily landscape.

Thoughts/recommendations.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 11, 2012)

I use B+W also, XS-PRO MRC Nano. I can't stand the thought of something touching the glass, like some guck getting splashed on it and having to clean it off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I had a Tiffen Polarizer on my 17-40 f4 years ago, and did not like the reduced image sharpness. Sold the filter (and the lens eventually). However, I have been considering the B+W 82mm Circular Polarizer for my 16-35 f2.8 since getting my 5DIII. Reason for the renewed interest is since getting the 5DIII I have been using the 16-35 for primarily landscape.
> 
> Thoughts/recommendations.



Were you using the CPL and 17-40 on APS-C? I ask because at angles of view wider than ~24mm (on FF), a CPl will give uneven polarization of the sky, resulting in dark/light bands. Sometimes the effect works, sometimes it distracts. Just something to be aware of... OTOH, for shots of water, foliage, etc., the uneven polarization isn't much of an issue. Personally, I have a B+W 82mm Käsemann CPL and it's excellent (I use it both on the 16-35mm II and on the TS-E 24mm II).


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Were you using the CPL and 17-40 on APS-C?



Yes I was. 40D and the 17-40 with either a Tiffen UV and Tiffen CP (separately). The colors with the CP were great, but the sharpness/clarity with vs without, were noticeable. 



neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, for shots of water, foliage, etc., the uneven polarization isn't much of an issue. Personally, I have a B+W 82mm Käsemann CPL and it's excellent (I use it both on the 16-35mm II and on the TS-E 24mm II).



The glare and reflections are what I was looking to overcome more than darkening the sky.

I have a beach trip coming up in a few weeks and really wanted to take some of my new gear with me (reluctant). Adding the MRC UV filters to the lenses I decide to take along is what I am considering; to reduce salt/sand contamination on the lens front.

For most of my work, I really don't see the need to keep filters on the lenses.


----------



## cliffwang (May 12, 2012)

I have protector for all my lens because that make me easier to clean the lens. That's the only reason for me to have protector in front of my lens. I personally believe lens hoods are the best friends for your lenses. If you really need a protector, get B&W or Hoya.


----------



## Terry Rogers (May 12, 2012)

I once dropped my camera shattering the UV filter and leaving the lens intact. I also feel much more comfortable cleaning a filter than my lens


----------



## digitalz (May 12, 2012)

lenstip did a review on UV/Clear filters and CPOL filters. I've been using Marumi filters as result. Just as good and sometimes besting the Hoya/BWs at half the cost.


----------



## arcanej (May 12, 2012)

Thank you'll for the answers!

A follow-up question: which L-lenses need filters for weather sealing? Or, more precisely, do any of my lenses need filters for weather sealing: 14L II, 50 L, 24-105L, 100L?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2012)

arcanej said:


> which L-lenses need filters for weather sealing? Or, more precisely, do any of my lenses need filters for weather sealing: 14L II, 50 L, 24-105L, 100L?



The 14L II neither needs nor accepts filters on the front of the lens.

The 50L requires a filter for complete sealing.

For the 24-105L and 100L, it's ambiguous, but I do use filters on them (on all my lenses, actually).

The lenses that definitely require a filter to complete the sealing are the 16-35 II, 17-40, and 50L - those threee state that in the manual. The lenses that definitely do not require a filter are the supertele primes (200/2, 300/2.8, etc.) which cannot take a front filter. The other sealed lenses (with the mount gasket) have no requirement for a filter stated in the manual, but Chuck Westfall has recommended using a filter for the sealing on those lenses.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 14, 2012)

All my lenses are protected with B&W Clear filters:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756819-REG/B_W_66_1066112_82mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

I spent good money on "L" lenses and I simply want them to look as new as possible. I hate to see marks & scratches on my lenses.


----------

