Filter sizes, step up rings, UV or no UV, etc.- Help!

JasnaHodzic · Jul 31, 2009

I currently own a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 EF-S lens and a 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens. The filter sizes for both of these lenses is 67mm. I have had both for about a year now and have a UV filter for each and one ND filter. I will soon be purchasing the 10-22mm f/3.5-4 lens, with a filter size of 77mm, and a 50mm f/1.4 lens, with a filter size of 58mm.
I have quite a few questions, as I'm really just a beginner to the wonderful world of filters. For my 10-22mm lens, I want to buy a Circular Polarizing filter, a ND filter, and a Grad ND filter. Also, perhaps a UV filter for protection. First off, I'm planning to use the 10-22mm primarily for landscape shots (duh,) which is why I'm interested in getting the filters listed above. But, I know there are distortions that can occur when using a polarizing filter on a very wide lens-so, is this something I should avoid all together or just take into consideration when shooting?

For my canon 50mm, the only filter I can think of buying now is an UV filter, again for protection.
However, I can see the number of filters adding up in my bag... with the cost also going up.
So, would you recommend me to get a step up ring for my 67mm and 58mm's? Also, if I buy a step up ring, is it universal for all smaller sized filters or are they specialized; i.e. one for 67mm-77mm, another for 58mm-77mm. I know the step up rings don't allow for the use of a lens hood, which I am pretty used to.
Or, should I just take the plunge and buy filters for each lens?
Thanks for any feedback

One last thing- I know I am treading into subjective material when discussing "to UV or not to UV," but I'm really stuck on this topic and would love some advice. I know many photographers just use the hoods for protection, but I wonder, how would that protect against any debris actually making contact with the lens itself?

Thanks for any responses!

Dwig · Jul 31, 2009

In general step-rings don't pose vignetting problems so its reasonable to step up each of your lenses to 77mm, buy new 77mm lens caps for each, and let them share the polarizer and NDs.

The big downside is that you can't use the very valuable accessory, a properly sized lens hood.

As to the UV's, only fools use them "for protection" in anything other than rain, mist, blowing sand, or similar. Selling them as protection filters is a scam that started in the '70s by dealers trying to find ways to maintain some reasonable profit (filters, particularily UVs, are marked up massively) when cameras began to be sold at deep discounts. I was a lowly sales clerk in camera stores at the time and I know the real inside story.

sween · Jul 31, 2009

My take is that you can make a pretty good argument against lens hoods, although most of us have them for each and every lens we own. I can recall maybe one or two instances of flare that a lens hood might have eliminated. Tough call. I use one most of the time, while I remain unconvinced of their absolute necessity. Back in my early years of photography I never owned one, no problem. I also happen to know several pro photogs and never see them use one. If you really want to know what I think, and maybe you don't, my guess is that lens hoods look "cool" so lots of us have bought into the premise.

So, that brings us to step-up and step-down rings. Step-ups are very useful, step-downs can cause huge vignetting, and generally do. The way around step-down vignetting is to shoot way wide in any given situation, then cropping in post. If that's not an option, you might skip step-downs completely.

Now, what about filters for digital photography? Outside of a UV or a Skylight 1A (which used to be a must, but likely was more BS to sell filters as another poster has indicated - I tend to strongly agree) for protection, the only filter that universally works with a dSLR is a CPL.

It all comes down to putting cheap glass between your expensive glass and your subject, which really makes no sense. FWIW, I completey did away with using a UV or Skylight years ago, and only screw them on lenses that I stow/store for long periods of time. And even then, it's typically because I can't find the front lens cap...

JasnaHodzic · Jul 31, 2009

Thanks for all the responses!
Some other questions I had were..
Why do the general step up rings cost SO much less than the brand named step up rings (8.00 vs 40.00)?
One other question I had was is it worth getting the circular polarizer at 77mm if I will get a lot of distortion using it on my wide angle lens (my only lens at 77mm)?

Garbz · Aug 1, 2009

Must be one sided posting day so I'll balance it.

I'm a fool. I use a UV filter. I shattered mine against a cliff face while rock climbing. It saved my front element. Shame I was too foolish to have to replace my $99 UV filter than my $900 lens. The hood doesn't prevent debris getting on the lens. There have been enough stories here, coffee spilt on the filter, mud thrown onto the filter, sand and things. None of which I ever would want on my actual elements.

But I half agree with sween. Don't put cheap glass on good glass. That said a good $100 UV filter is not cheap glass by any stretch of the imagination. I've done the tests. I've posted them here. People couldn't tell the difference between the UV filtered picture and the normal picture. My experience with the cliff makes using a UV filter a no-brainier for protection.

I use stepup rings on my lenses for my polarisers and IR filters. Thats because they aren't cheap. As has been pointed out you can't use your hoods with a stepup filter, but then you can't use a hood with most polarisers either so that doesn't matter. It all depends on your budget. If you can afford a specific filter for each of you lenses than go for it.

Btw I know how these threads end. Someone will say I am stupid, I say they are stupid, and no one wins. I'd rather go shout at a brick wall, so I'm not going to reply to any more protection filter related issues. I've stated my opinion.

sween · Aug 1, 2009

Btw I know how these threads end. Someone will say I am stupid, I say they are stupid, and no one wins. I'd rather go shout at a brick wall, so I'm not going to reply to any more protection filter related issues. I've stated my opinion.

I don't think you're stupid at all. My history with protective glass is pretty simple - I went that route for a long, long time, then one day discovered that the type of photography I do really doesn't demand rugged front element protection. So, I stopped hanging UVs and 1As on my lenses. Nothing wrong or right about it, really.

I no longer climb rocks or slug it out through mud with my camera gear. About the most jeopardy I'd ever put a body or lens in was when I used to fly fish and considered wading streams with a rig. I never did it, never wanted to blow a body and lens on a photo of a fish. To me, not worth it.

Garbz · Aug 1, 2009

Didn't say you specifically would, but there's enough other people here who treat this more seriously than any religion. It's good advice sween, I too say work what's best for you. Anytime someone asks this kind of question though expect a war to break out.