neutral density filters

[wdwmom2]

I just purchased a wide angle lens for my S3. Without realizing it, it doesn't have a front thread. I want to use a neutral density filter on this lens occasionally.

Can I rig a ND filter on this lens, even if I have to tape it on somehow???

Any suggestions would be appreciated!!!!

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

[EDIT]Oops, sorry, I thought you were trying to attach the WA to the camera, not the filter to the WA.[/EDIT]

You should be able to put the ND filter on the lens adapter and then the WA into the ND filter's threads. I'm not sure if it will cause you any vignetting, though. One filter behind the lens shouldn't cause a problem, though.

I wouldn't recommend attaching anything to a camera lens with tape....

 

[wdwmom2]

You need a lens adapter ... get the one from Lensmate; exceptional quality from a fantastic company. I've got one on my S3, and it almost never comes off.

They come in two sizes -- 52mm and 58mm -- get the one that matches your WA lens, and then buy filters of the same size.

You are right!!! I do need a lens adaptor. And believe me, I have a small list of items that I am ordering from Lensmate !! Then I also need a step up or step down ring, depending on which adaptor I go with. Who knows, I may order both adaptors, but not sure yet. The WA lens is a 55mm.

My problem though is that the front of the WA lens has no threads on it. Hence, no way to attach a filter. So my problem is how to attach a filter to the front of the WA lens. Even if it means rigging something.

So give me your best ideas on how to attach the filter. Come on Stitch, put your thinking cap on for me!!!!

 

[ukcatfan]

I am pretty sure that I saw a rubber squeeze on filter holder somewhere before, but cannot remember where. It took the square 4x4 filters. Also, I am pretty sure that it could be rotated even after it is attached.

I think LPZ_Stitch!'s idea of first mounting the filter to the adapter and then the lens to the filter is the easiest solution, but if you are also throwing in a step ring, you might start getting vignetting and/or problems with the lens getting the correct focus/effect. Keep in mind that the adapter lenses are designed to be a certain distance from the front element of the camera's lens, so if you put too much extra distance in there, it might make it not work right.

Kevin

 

[wdwmom2]

I think LPZ_Stitch!'s idea of first mounting the filter to the adapter and then the lens to the filter is the easiest solution, but if you are also throwing in a step ring, you might start getting vignetting and/or problems with the lens getting the correct focus/effect. Keep in mind that the adapter lenses are designed to be a certain distance from the front element of the camera's lens, so if you put too much extra distance in there, it might make it not work right.

Kevin

That probably is the easiest solution, but I have also read that filters are not made to take the weight of a lens. Maybe the lens will be light enough that the weight won't come into play. I don't have the WA in my hands yet, but it has been ordered.

 

[jann1033]

i took some shots i liked of weird clouds at dawn/sunrise with the sun reflecting off the lake...however...some have the sun and/ or sun's reflection in the water blown out...would a neutral density filter help with a shot like that?( very high contrast) i couldn't go to high on the aperture due to the low light of everything else but then the sun was overexposed, maybe cause it was only partially showing it seemed extra bright...so anything else i could have done in this case i didn't think of?

 

[tinksdad]

i took some shots i liked of weird clouds at dawn/sunrise with the sun reflecting off the lake...however...some have the sun and/ or sun's reflection in the water blown out...would a neutral density filter help with a shot like that?( very high contrast) i couldn't go to high on the aperture due to the low light of everything else but then the sun was overexposed, maybe cause it was only partially showing it seemed extra bright...so anything else i could have done in this case i didn't think of?

Yes! That's where they work the best. I've gotten best results with the Cokin type holders with the square or rectangular filters. You can slide the filter up and down and rotate the holder on the lens to fit the scene and location of the horizon or location that needs the ND exposure knock down.

Then expose for the area you want to be the main subject.

Like this shot:

 

[boBQuincy]

A *split* neutral density filter could be a big help in this case but a standard ND filter will not reduce the range of the scene, it will only allow us to use a slower shutter/wider aperture.

It sounds like what you ran into here is too great a range for the sensor to capture. HDR (high dynamic range) to the rescue! Take 3 or more exposures and blend them to get the entire range of the scene without losing highlights or shadows.

 

[jann1033]

thanks, i remembered you could layer them but forgot i had to take more than one but next time...and i was planning on a nd filter so i'll make sure and get the split one...
beautiful colors kevin btw

 

[Dave Tavener]

I was taking pictures of my daughter's First Communion yesterday outside in full sun and I was using an external flash for fill. I was trying to get the aperture wide open to blur out the background (side of the church...) but the meter kept telling me it was overexposing. I had to stop it down to F11 or so before the exposure was correct. It took me a while to realize why - the flash sync was too slow to allow the shutter speed to balance out the wide open aperture. Is this a case where having a 2 or 3 stop ND filter would have let me get the shot I wanted or should I have just pulled the external flash? It was midday sun and there were pretty dark shadows under her eyes....

Thanks,
Dave

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Many external flashes have a "high speed" flash sync mode just for this situation.

An ND filter would certainly work, but I think high speed flash sync would be a better option. Another alternative would be a reflector.

 

[Dave Tavener]

I've got a SB400, so no high speed flash sync. The reflector would have been awkward as I was taking full-body shots. I guess I need to get an ND filter!

Dave

 

[Quicklabs]

There is just a big jump between 3 and 6 f/stops. My main uses will be running water, trying daytime motion shots, etc.
Which would you choose?

 

[AndrewWG]

I would think that 6 f stops would be a bit much, but I don't really know. It just seems like it would be too much for most situations. 3 stops seems more likely to be the one that you would want. I'm looking into these too so I'm interested in seeing what people say about them.

 

[handicap18]

You'll have to do the math.

If your using it during the day, you'll be using a low ISO, 200. A small f/stop, say f/16. Then it will depend on what you want your shutter speed to be. Lets say with these settings you get 1/60th. A 3 stop filter will bring you down to 1/8th. If your camera can go down to ISO100, then that is 1 additional stop. You can then play around with your f/stop to get a sharper one if you feel the need.

Its all going to depend on the application you want to use it for and how much light is going to be available. I think to get that white water effect of a running river or waterfall, you'll want around a 1/4th shutter speed.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Where do you get 0.9 and 1.8 to be 3 and 6 stops? My understanding was that 2x was 1 stop, 4x was 2 stops, and 8x was three stops.

A stop is a doubling or halving of the shutter speed. For aperture, stops are f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, and f/22. The steps in between are half or third stops.

If I could only get one ND filter, I'd get a 2 stop ND filter. Stronger ones are harder to work with. Lighter ones are less useful. Having a stackable set of 1, 2, and 3 stop ND filters is the best because you can go from 1 to 6 stops in 1 stop increments.

 

[Quicklabs]

Good idea about getting stackables.

Neutral Density filters evenly reduce the amount of light passing thru the lens without effecting color.
· Ideal for reducing bright light in large aperture situations when a narrow depth is field is needed.
· Allows for slower shutter speeds when blurring or showing of movement is desired.
· Allows balancing of exposure to highlight a key subject.
· Lets you use higher speed films in bright light.
· B&W Neutral Density filters are available in the following strengths:
· .3 (2X) #101 Reduces the light one f-stop.
· .6 (4X) #102 Reduces the light two f-stops.
· .9 (8X) #103 Reduces the light three f-stops.
· 1.8 (64X) #106 Reduces the light six f-stops

Where do you get 0.9 and 1.8 to be 3 and 6 stops? My understanding was that 2x was 1 stop, 4x was 2 stops, and 8x was three stops.

 

[AndrewWG]

Good idea about getting stackables.

Neutral Density filters evenly reduce the amount of light passing thru the lens without effecting color.
· Ideal for reducing bright light in large aperture situations when a narrow depth is field is needed.
· Allows for slower shutter speeds when blurring or showing of movement is desired.
· Allows balancing of exposure to highlight a key subject.
· Lets you use higher speed films in bright light.
· B&W Neutral Density filters are available in the following strengths:
· .3 (2X) #101 Reduces the light one f-stop.
· .6 (4X) #102 Reduces the light two f-stops.
· .9 (8X) #103 Reduces the light three f-stops.
· 1.8 (64X) #106 Reduces the light six f-stops

So I guess from this that I would actually want a .6 or .9 for two to three stops. Possibly both if they are stackable. I'm just guessing that the 1.8 (6 stop) filter is way too much.

This may be a stupid question, but I'm gonna ask anyways. If you stack a 2 stop and a 3 stop, does it make it a 5 stop difference, or is it multiplied for some reason, making it a 6 stop difference? Not much difference either way, but I just don't know if it is added or multiplied. I'm guessing it is just adding them up to make a 5 stop difference.

 

[boBQuincy]

The .9 and 1.8 are just a way of measuring the light attenuation as density, on a log scale where the number is the power of 10. On this scale 1 = 10x, 2 = 100x, etc so .9 is 8x (almost 10x) and 1.8 is 64x.
It would be nice if all the manufacturers used the same measuring system!

To me a 6 stop ND is probably the most useful for daylight, taking a 1/100 shutter speed down to about 1/2 second (at f/16). I have a 3 stop ND and it is not enough for waterfalls.

 

[Groucho]

I used my ND8 a little bit recently, I decided on that as I figured that that would be enough difference in light to justify slapping it on. Only one or two stops didn't seem like it would make enough difference to be worthwhile.

Six stops might start to limit what you see in the viewfinder, though.

Using ND filters is a place where Live View is kind of handy, since you'll most likely be using a tripod or other similar support system when using the filter. My camera's live view doesn't "gain up" in low light but it was still easy to frame and focus the shot, then turn off live view and take the photo with a remote shutter release. You can still see through the viewfinder OK but it is noticeably dim with an ND8 filter mounted.