Filters Question

[jtimmons]

What kind of filters are most important to use......UV, Polarizing, etc.?

What does the "mm" number mean on the lense...are you suppose to use a 50mm polarizing filter with a 50mm lense.

(If you have any good article links for filters, let me know)

Thanks!

 

[PhotobearSam]

Hi there.

The mm on the filter refers to it's diameter not what lenght of lens it's for. Your lens will have a surface diameter and you can find the one that it fits by looking for that number on the lens. If you are not sure, you can bring the lens with you and the person at the store will help.

I recommend a UV filter on all lenses. It protects them as well as helps with regular photos and can't really hurt anything. Here is a quote

The UV filter is one of the most common filters you'll find in most camera bags. The filter is primarily used to cut down on glare from bright sun. It's also used as a protection filter for your lens if you're not using a colored filter.

As for polorizing, you do not use that when taking pics of people as it will distort the colour. A polorizing filter is used to... (here is a quote)

Commonly used for landscape pictures, a polarizing filter makes the blues of Montana’s big sky “pop.” In fact, it increases the color saturation of your picture so that all your colors will be brighter. You can also use it to control reflections off of water and windows. You don’t need to use one at high noon, right after sunrise, or right before sunset. The light is naturally polarized at sunrise and sunset, and because the filter uses up about two stops of light, taking it off preserves precious light resources during this golden time of day.


I use one when the sky is washed out and I want to take scenic pics. I even use them with black and white print film and my SLR when the sky is not perfect.


Here is a link that explains some filters... http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm

Here too... http://www.all-things-photography.com/using-filters.html

I have UV, polorizing, infra red and some neutral density filters but you don't need a lot of hoopla. I suggest you get a UV for each lens you own and start experimenting with a polorized filter and once you have gotten used to that one, then see if anything else stikes your fancy.

I hope I helped.

 

[jann1033]

agree with all the above but to add....

depending on what you might like to play with, i got some star filters, spot filters etc on ebay for really cheap...personally i wouldn't buy a used cp or uv though as they get a lot of use.

and also depending on how large your lens is you can buy what are called step up rings and use that to go from one lens mm to another ie 55mm to 58mm. the larger cp filters are $$( for the 77mm around 80-100+ ) where as a step up ring is about $10. get the cp for the larger lens mm and the step up ring for the small mm to the large mm ie in the above eg, the cp would be 58 mm, the ring 55 to 58 mm, just make sure it's a step up and not down ring, the first mm should be the smaller # not the larger #. that way you don't need to buy a bunch of cps since eventually you will probably have many different lens sizes.

and make sure it's a circular polarizer, it'll say that on the case. there is another polarizer type but you want circular

i use a uv for each lens as well simply to protect the lens but some just use lens hoods, it 's your call.but i have seen articles where cheap uv filters changed the image quality a lot.

 

[DVC Jen]

If you look on the back of your lens cap - it will say what size filter that particular lens needs.

 

[jann1033]

If you look on the back of your lens cap - it will say what size filter that particular lens needs.

jen how'd you get so smart so quick? i never knew that ... duh for me
that makes it lots easier doesn't it?

 

[ukcatfan]

i use a uv for each lens as well simply to protect the lens but some just use lens hoods, it 's your call.but i have seen articles where cheap uv filters changed the image quality a lot.

This is a very good point. For a DSLR, if you get a non-coated or single coated filter, it could affect image quality. If you want to use a UV filter for protection, then go for a more expensive multicoated one. I had a single coated one on an adapter for my S1 IS and it caused no difference in quality. I tested it on my K100D and quality was noticibly degraded.

I prefer to use the hood for protection as my biggest worries are from impact instead of scratching and residue. A plastic hood protects from impact better because it can absorb some shock for an impact where a metal hood or filter will simply pass that shockwave on down the lens to the delicate parts inside. Rubber and metal hoods offer some protection, but not as much as plastic. A filter protects from scratches and residue buildup. I typically do not put my camera in extreme situations and opted for just a hood. It would be the best protection to use both, but I do not want to spend the money on a nice filter when the hood should do fine for me in most cases. Plus, my Pentax lenses are known to have some of the best coatings around, so why cover them up?

I also have a CP and a star filter, which I really like. Most film filters have become almost obsolete with software doing the same thing, but there are a few that just cannot be duplicated. For example CPs, neutral density, IR, etc. Other filters can still be more effective, but most people now opt for software solutions for the cost savings, flexibility, and ease of use.

I found an online shop for them that I really like. http://www.camerafilters.comThey are cheap, seem to be honest, and very quick. They are also a nice place to pick up a few extra caps and so on for next to nothing.

Kevin

 

[mabas9395]

If you visit other photography boards, the question of whether to use a protective UV filter or not is as much a topic of heated debate as Nikon vs Canon or Ford vs Dodge. (the correct answer is canon and dodge btw).

One side says that a chain is only a strong as its weakest link and a photo will only be as good as the worst piece of glass in front of it. The idea being that if you spend several hundreds to more than a thousand for a lens, why would you put a $20 filter in front of it?

The other side says that if they make such a financial investment into a lens, its foolish to leave the most vulnerable part (the front lens) exposed to damage.

The part they can both agree on is that if you are going to put a UV filter on your lens, get one that is equal in quality to your lens glass because a cheap filter can make your photos worse when you thought it was going to make them better.

 

[jann1033]

on the flip side, a cheap uv gives you an excuse for bad photos...ie "this would be sharp/ colorful/ properly exposed/ better composition" if i just hadn't used that cheap uv filter....always a silver lining

 

[DVC Jen]

jen how'd you get so smart so quick? i never knew that ... duh for me
that makes it lots easier doesn't it?

The guy who sold me my camera at the camera store told me.

I am not "that smart". Heck I would be happy if I could remember to check my white balance before I start to shoot - and yesterday I was taking pics of my students. I thought my new IS lens had gone bad. I couldn't see a gosh darned thing.

....... helps so much when ya take the lens cap off.

 

[0bli0]

....... helps so much when ya take the lens cap off.

it's ok - at least no one snapped a picture of you with it on (like Ms. Beckham here...)

 

[jann1033]

 

[DVC Jen]

that's funny.

 

[boBQuincy]

I won't get into the filter/no filter wars (this time) but I think most people would agree that a polarizer is a good thing. It can do a lot to improve a photo, like saturation, glare reduction, etc. that postprocessing can't really do.

If rich and famous people leave the lens cap on, maybe I should try it too!