Filters

[YesDear]

My personal opinion is that they can produce ok results, but I would rather save my money to get a decent or better macro lens. If you have the money to burn then they can be fun to play with.

I have found in over 35 years of taking pictures that the "gadet" things I bought to save money very quickly were placed to the side and then I wished I had saved my money for better things.

Just one opinion, but based from a lot of money spent over they years on camera stuff.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Like Bob, I have used a Canon 500D. It's of much better quality than the single lens diopters. It's also much more expensive. Life's full of trade-offs.

Another popular option is the use of extension tubes. Having no glass, they are optically the same, so you can proudly by cheap ones without anyone disparaging the impact on your photos.

Having had close-up filters, extension tubes, and a macro lens, I can say that each has their place. The macro lens is the easiest to use. But they are relatively costly and no one makes a macro zoom lens. The close-up filters are relatively easy to use, but you have to put the filter on to shoot macro and take it off to shoot at a distance. I found the extension cubes to be a real pain to use, but they are cheap and can be used in combination with other approaches to focus even closer.

You're welcome to use my extension tubes, but you'll have to find where the @#$% that broke into my hotel room and stole them has them. That is, unless you took them. If that is the case, I want them back.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Oh yeah, here's my sample shot. It doesn't have a cool bee in it like Bob's.

 

[Groucho]

Are the cheapie eBay ones even glass, or just plastic?

I'd avoid the cheap ones - and once you get into the expensive ones, you might as well look as a second-hand macro lens. I have a Vivitar 55mm F2.8 macro lens that I bought for around $60 that produces terrific photos and can focus down to 1:1. It's an M42 mount (aka Pentax screw mount or universal screw mount) and most cameras have adapters to use such a lens, though most (ie, non-Pentax DSLRs) can't focus to infinity with them, but that wouldn't be a problem if you're after macro photography. So there's a complete 1:1 macro option for probably under $100 if you do well on eBay.

You may also be able to find comparable third-party macro lenses in your native camera mount for relatively cheap. I suspect that even a so-so macro lens will be a good lens with a close-up filter on it, macro lenses are by and large a very sharp bunch.

If you want to stay even cheaper, I'd lean towards the extension tubes - a pain to use, but no extra glass (or plastic) to degrade the image.

 

[TinksDH]

But they are relatively costly and no one makes a macro zoom lens.

Nikon came pretty close to making a zoom macro, the 70-180 f/4.5-5.6. Technically it isn't a true 1:1 macro; it only goes up to 1:1.3 at 180mm and even less magnification at 70mm. However, for all intents and purposes it is a macro, and a cult classic at that.

http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm

 

[emmabelle]

You may also be able to find comparable third-party macro lenses in your native camera mount for relatively cheap. I suspect that even a so-so macro lens will be a good lens with a close-up filter on it, macro lenses are by and large a very sharp bunch.

I have a lens from my first Nikon film SLR camera that says on it macro 1:4.5 f80-205mm. I have the Nikon D40, so no focus in the camera body. Is there a way to use this lens on my camera? It fits on fine and I realize it has to be manually focused, but I can't figure out if it's possible to set the shutter speed in the camera to be the right one.

Edited to add: Never mind, I figured it out, I just didn't have the shutter speed fast enough. I think I'll bring this lens to Florida because it seems to work fairly well.

 

[Groucho]

I have a lens from my first Nikon film SLR camera that says on it macro 1:4.5 f80-205mm.

Well, that one's not really a "macro" lens. That's a pretty normal focus range for a zoom.

To get to be a macro, you need something closer to 1:2 (objects are half the size of real life when the image hits the sensor/film) and ideally, 1:1 (objects are the same size as real life when the image hits the sensor/film.)

With a macro of 1:4.5, your minimum focusing distance is probably a few feet... with a 1:1 macro, it's more like inches.

 

[emmabelle]

Well, that one's not really a "macro" lens. That's a pretty normal focus range for a zoom.

To get to be a macro, you need something closer to 1:2 (objects are half the size of real life when the image hits the sensor/film) and ideally, 1:1 (objects are the same size as real life when the image hits the sensor/film.)

With a macro of 1:4.5, your minimum focusing distance is probably a few feet... with a 1:1 macro, it's more like inches.

Actually I knew that and realized after I posted that it sounded like I wanted to use it for closeup photography, but I actually justed wanted to know if I could use it with my camera. I sometimes get off on a tangent that's totally unrelated to what I originally asked, my daughter says that I have ADD.

 

[edolyne]

I am looking to add some filters to my gear and wondering if anyone on here uses or has used the Cokin system and what their experiences have been. Thanks for the input.

 

[rhiansmom]

Its what I learned with and went to after I "graduated" from the series of classes I took. I love that you only have to buy one set and adapter rings to fit all your lenses. I started with a few used ones from Adorama and have been adding to my stash ever since!

 

[AndrewWG]

I got them but never ever use them. Why? Well, I suppose I just haven't really given them the time. The system is real easy to use and if you get the P series, it will fit most any lens with the right size adapter ring. The rings don't cost much, the filters can be expensive, but like I said, one size fits all basically. This is the advantage over the screw in filters, but the disadvantage is that it is a bit bulky of a system vs the nice compact screw ins.

 

[Alztybrn]

So...I am fairly new into this DSLR thing and am going to the World in June. The more I read, it looks like I am going to need some filters for my D30. Problem is...I have no idea where to begin. What type of filters should I consider? Is there someplace I can read up on different types, when to use them, how to use them ect.?
Thanks!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

So...I am fairly new into this DSLR thing and am going to the World in June. The more I read, it looks like I am going to need some filters for my D30. Problem is...I have no idea where to begin. What type of filters should I consider? Is there someplace I can read up on different types, when to use them, how to use them ect.?
Thanks!

D30? Sure it's not a 30D? The D30 was an incredible camera for it's time, but it's about 8 years old now. You'd probably be better off saving up for a newer camera body rather than spending money on filters.

Assuming that it's a 30D, there are only a few filters that are really useful for a DSLR.

1) A polarizing filter (makes sure its a circular, not linear, polarizer). This cuts glare, reduces reflections, and deepens blue skies. If you take pictures outdoors, I would strongly, strongly recommend one.

These others are nice to have, but not that critical.

2) A neutral density filter. This is like sunglasses for your camera. It makes everything darker. It's useful when you want a longer shutter speed that you can get with the available sunlight. You may want a few of these for different brightness levels.

3) A split neutral density filter. A filter that is part clear, part dark. You use it when part of your picture is very bright and part is in the shadows. You really should have two - one that goes from dark to light all at once and one that goes from dark to light more gradually.


That's it for me and filters. Some people like starlight filters (make bright lights into stars). Colored filters used to be popular, but it's easy to do that in Photoshop. The same is true for softening filters.

Oh wait, here's one more. You might want a close-up filter. It's like reading glasses for your camera. It allows it to focus much closer for taking pictures of little things.

 

[Alztybrn]

Thanks Mark...and yes it is the 30D...

 

[Merrywheather]

I was wondering about filters this week, myself. (Sorry to the OP, I hope I am not hijacking your thread). I am a visual learner, so which of the 3 filters mentioned in Mark's post would have been helpful in correcting the exposure of this shot (where the water in the upper half is blown out, and the scene below is dark). I am assuming that it would be the split neutral density filter, is that correct? Or would you use a different one for waterfalls, in general?

I really need to get myself some filters and experiment. I only have UV filters.

 

[AndrewWG]

I was wondering about filters this week, myself. (Sorry to the OP, I hope I am not hijacking your thread). I am a visual learner, so which of the 3 filters mentioned in Mark's post would have been helpful in correcting the exposure of this shot (where the water in the upper half is blown out, and the scene below is dark). I am assuming that it would be the split neutral density filter, is that correct? Or would you use a different one for waterfalls, in general?

I really need to get myself some filters and experiment. I only have UV filters.

I would guess the split ND filter would have worked nicely there as there is a nice clear line of overexposed vs normal exposure areas. The darker part of the split ND would have darkened the upper portion and brought it more towards the correct exposure for the whole scene.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that a split ND would have helped. To be honest, though, often the key to a tricky lighting situation is waiting for the light to be right. In the last wildlife/landscape workshop I went to, the instructors basically said that if you go to shoot a waterfall and part of it is in sun and part is in shade, put down your camera and play in the water.

 

[Merrywheather]

In the last wildlife/landscape workshop I went to, the instructors basically said that if you go to shoot a waterfall and part of it is in sun and part is in shade, put down your camera and play in the water.

Ha! Well, I just about went swimming, based upon the fact that I was perched on a rock in the middle of the stream!

Thanks for the info - it's good to know. I was really struggling to capture anything that looked decent. But, then again, that's not all that unusual!

 

[Alztybrn]

How do I know which filters I need? Which size etc....What are some of the better brands/types to buy or avoid?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Most lenses (accept perhaps some p&s lenses) have threads on the front for screwing in filters. The size is usually listed somewhere on or near the front of the lens. For a DSLR, typical sizes range from about 52mm to 82mm. Lens makers often use the same size threads for several different lenses in the same price/style category. For example, Canon uses 77mm threads for their 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 17-40mm lenses.

If your lenses (or lenses you intend to buy soon) use different size threads, buy a filter that fits on the largest lens. You can be adapter rings that let you use bigger filters and smaller lens but not the other way.

Another thing to be aware of is that you can have vignetting problems on wider lenses. On a really wide angle lens, the filter sometimes intrudes into the edges of the picture, darkening them. For this reason, they sell extremely thin polarizing filters.

There are two major types of filters. There are those that screw directly into the lens and those that slide into holders. My personal preference is for polarizers that screw directly into the lens. That lets me use my lens hood. For graduated ND filters, I prefer ones that slide into a holder. The reason is that it gives me the flexibility to adjust the split line.

In my opinion (nothing scientific and probably wrong), Cokin, Tiffen, and Canon (who really just rebadge other people's filters) make cheap filters. Hoya makes cheap filters and really good (expensive) filters. B+W makes really good filters. The biggest difference in filters isn't so much their direct optical quality but their resistance to reflections and flare.

One other filter type that I left off is the UV filter. It's basically a clear glass filter. Many people use these to protect the front of their lens. They add additional risk of flare or internal reflections but they are otherwise invisible. My personal preference is to use a lens hood and skip the UV filter, but I'm also known for being a reckless idiot. Many people swear by UV filters. Many others swear at them. It's one of those photographic religious issues with true believers always ready to condemn the heathens with the opposite view.