Looking at filters

[zombiemann]

I don't have much in the lens filter department. I have a decent CPL and an IR filter, and a couple of cheap UV filters I got suckered into buying with the camera to "protect my lens" (yes I now see the flaw in that idea and I don't use them). I am thinking about picking up an ND and possible a GND, but I have no idea what I am really looking at. I don't have a whole lot of money to spend so I'd like to know what filter is going to give me my best bang for the buck.

 

[Big Mike]

A CPL is the most useful filter in the digital era. It still does things that we can't do in post production.

Depending on what type of photography you like to do, an ND filter may or may not be useful. I have one, the only time I really use it, is when I need longer shutter speeds to blur moving water. Waterfalls ~ Mike Hodson Photography

A graduated filter can be handy, although you can (within reason) easily replicate the effect in post. The main benefit, of course, is to compress the dynamic range of the scene so that the camera can capture more detail (better exposure) in a single shot. That certainly is a big plus, but these days, it's not hard to just take multiple exposures and blend them in post.

And the one major problem with grad filters, is that the gradation is always flat. I like to shoot mountains, so to tone down the sky, I'd also be darkening the mountain above the horizon.

If you do want to get a grad filter (or two), get square ones. The circular ones are all but useless because the grad is always in the middle. With a square one (rectangular), you can slide the filter to where it matches the composition of your choosing. There is usually a filter holder system for square filters, but many photographers just hold the filter over the lens.

 

[zombiemann]

Actually my main reason for looking at the ND filters is just exactly the example you gave. I find myself shooting near water quite a bit and I love the effect you can get with an ND filter Is there a particular level of ND filter (.3 .8 etc) that is recommended?

I've used my CPL with mixed results, but I am certain that is a product of my lack of knowledge. Maybe before I spend the money on more stuff I should master the art of using what I have.

 

[Big Mike]

The strength of the ND filter that you want/need, is more a product of the light you are shooting in at the time. There are adjustable ND filters, but I can't speak to the quality of them.

When I need a little more filtering, I stack filters...usually an ND onto my polarizer.

 

[tirediron]

...And the one major problem with grad filters, is that the gradation is always flat. I like to shoot mountains, so to tone down the sky, I'd also be darkening the mountain above the horizon.

This can be problematic, however there are two different kinds of G-ND; hard grad and soft grad. As the name implies, the hard grad has a much shorter transition distance from full to no grad, while the soft grad (depending on brand) can use up to 1/3 of the filter transitioning from full grad to nothing.

If you do want to get a grad filter (or two), get square ones. The circular ones are all but useless because the grad is always in the middle. With a square one (rectangular), you can slide the filter to where it matches the composition of your choosing. There is usually a filter holder system for square filters, but many photographers just hold the filter over the lens.

This^^ The Cokin filters are a popular mid-range line, with a reasonable price-point. A new 'P' size (the size generally needed with higher-end, fast lenses (77mm) will run you about ~$50. If your pockets are a little deeper you won't be sorry by stepping up to either the Lee or Singh-Ray systems.

 

[zombiemann]

All my current lenses are 58mm, and quite frankly I'm not going to be upgrading them anytime soon. When I get new lenses I want to be able to get good quality and I'm on an extremely fixed budget. 15-20 bucks here and there is one thing, several hundred at a time, well that's slightly different story

I am eyeballing a set of 3 ND filters on amazon, they seem to get relatively positive reviews. I am into photography for fun, not as a career path, so I have trouble justifying large purchases

 

[tirediron]

I would strongly avoid buying the cheap no-name sets that crop up on eBay, Amazon, etc. Almost invariably their quality is so poor that it will actually degrade your images. Instead, keep saving and keep an eye on Craig's List, and other 'sites for better-quality used gear.

 

[cgipson1]

Anytime you put something between your subject and your lens, there is a chance of image degradation. Cheap filters are almost a sure bet for this. You would be much better off buying one decent filter for a bit more, then buying three Junk filters... that you will never use because they are so bad.

Please keep in mind that those "Amazon" reviews are from people without a clue, or they would not have bought those filters in the first place!