Gah! Vent on $$$ of filters!

dcmoody23 · Oct 22, 2010

Okay, about to purchase 8 filters for my 52mm and 6 for my 77mm -- The price is making my head spin. My total cost is going to be well over $450. Ehh. Definitely gonna pass out on the ND filters for the 70-200 (77mm) for now - maybe snag a 0.3 and wait for christmas on the (2) 0.6s and (2) 0.9s

But gah. The expensiveness to photography is just so insane.. I mean filters aren't even (technically) the essentials of photography.. It's just frustrating!

tirediron · Oct 23, 2010

Okay, so you're buying cheap...

$450? You can spend that on one Singh-Ray vari-density or blue-gold polarizer. You're right, good filters are expensive, but they're worth it. Think about it - you're talking about a filter for your 70-200 (I'll assume that's either the Canon L, or Nikon gold-ring) - either way a piece of glass worth something in the area of $2000.00 which will take tack-sharp images; does it make sense to put a cheap piece of glass on the front? Filters are like tripods; whether they're essential or not is a matter of opinion, but if you use them, get good ones. You'll pay for it later if you don't.

dcmoody23 · Oct 23, 2010

tirediron said:
Okay, so you're buying cheap...

$450? You can spend that on one Singh-Ray vari-density or blue-gold polarizer. You're right, good filters are expensive, but they're worth it. Think about it - you're talking about a filter for your 70-200 (I'll assume that's either the Canon L, or Nikon gold-ring) - either way a piece of glass worth something in the area of $2000.00 which will take tack-sharp images; does it make sense to put a cheap piece of glass on the front? Filters are like tripods; whether they're essential or not is a matter of opinion, but if you use them, get good ones. You'll pay for it later if you don't.

Nah, I'm very cheap.. I have a sigma 70-200 f2/8 .. that was $800, but it's a great piece of glass IMO.
And you're absolutely right about the filters being expensive. Gah. I really don't wanna spend the money on it but I think I'll have to take a dive on the B+W or hoyas.
Haha well thanks for talking some sense into me before I got even more upset

dcmoody23 · Oct 23, 2010

How about the Cokin system? is that legit?

peanut170 · Oct 23, 2010

I dont know much about filters but wouldnt it be better to buy a couple good 1's instead of 14 average ones? Hell i didnt even know you need 6-8 for each lens.

arcooke · Oct 23, 2010

dcmoody23 said:
How about the Cokin system? is that legit?

Was just about to say that... One word-- Cokin

RobWyse · Oct 23, 2010

Another option would be not buying the filters for the 52mm thread, and instead use that money to get better quality versions of what you're going to get for the 77mm thread. You can then get a step-up ring (or set of, don't know if there's a 52-77 around) off ebay for a few dollars, and then use those 77mm thread filters on the 52mm thread too. That will give you better quality, and in the long run is also cheaper.

Sw1tchFX · Oct 23, 2010

dcmoody23 said:
Okay, about to purchase 8 filters for my 52mm and 6 for my 77mm -- The price is making my head spin. My total cost is going to be well over $450. Ehh. Definitely gonna pass out on the ND filters for the 70-200 (77mm) for now - maybe snag a 0.3 and wait for christmas on the (2) 0.6s and (2) 0.9s
But gah. The expensiveness to photography is just so insane.. I mean filters aren't even (technically) the essentials of photography.. It's just frustrating!

just do the 77mm filters and then get a 52->77mm step up ring. then you just have to buy one set.

burgo · Oct 23, 2010

filters make my cokin hard LOL. You can buy some OK standard filters like CPL, UV, etc on ebay quite cheaply. You can do most of what filters do in Lightroom & Photoshop post processing anyway. The only ones I bother having that are Cokin and top notch is the graduated ND & ND filters for landscapes and waterfalls etc. All those other filters are just a throwback to the old film days especially B&W film photography. My new Lightroom 3 software can even do ND graduated filtering post processing.

bazooka · Oct 23, 2010

I went the cokin route and don't even worry about the holder... just tape them in front of your polarizer. Start with the cheapies...but they do tend to get a lot of smudge and stuff on them. I find they're harder to keep clean than the screw-on polarizer.

Robin Usagani · Oct 23, 2010

I would have used the $450 toward the $800+ on the sigma and bought a used Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I am biased though

Bitter Jeweler · Oct 23, 2010

dcmoody23 said:
But gah. The expensiveness to photography is just so insane.. I mean filters aren't even (technically) the essentials of photography.. It's just frustrating!

You make it as expensive as you want it to be.

Differentiate between what you need to do what you do right now, and what you want to be able to do in the future. Have you pushed the limits of your gear already? Is your creativity hampered by not having all those extras?

Something I have learned over the years: Sometimes you learn more, by being limited with your tools, than you do by having all possible tools available to you.

pgriz · Oct 23, 2010

Bitter Jeweler said:
<snip>
Something I have learned over the years: Sometimes you learn more, by being limited with your tools, than you do by having all possible tools available to you.

Those are words of wisdom.

For one thing, you have to really think about what you are doing and trying to achieve. Secondly, necessity being the mother of invention, the solution is usually inventive, different, and unique. Thirdly, learning occurs at the edges of experience, away from the center (which is the comfort zone). When your equipment puts you at the edge, you either adapt and learn to overcome, or you succumb (I need a sharper lens! I need a more expensive camera! I need a crutch for my lack of skill and knowledge!).

Back to the filters - why so many? I can see the need for three filters - polarizer, neutral density, and graduated ND. As was already suggested, buying the filters in the larger size and using a step-down converter will accomodate most of your needs (except, perhaps with very wide-angle lenses).

dcmoody23 · Oct 23, 2010

The number of filters I'm planning for includes (1) 0.3 ND filter, (2) 0.6 ND filters, (2) 0.9 ND filters, (1) UV filter, (1) warming filter) and then I wanted a cheap infrared to test out and see if an expensive one would a worthy purchase.

If they make 52-77 step-ups that'd be amazing. I'll look before I buy, but it doesn't seem too likely - that's a big jump. And wouldn't it ruin image quality?