Must-Have Filters?

[Alfred D.]

The thing with that is that when you're walking around the city, stopping to take photos every few seconds, it becomes very impractical to keep taking the lens cap on/off.

So don't! Anyway, I don't, in those circumstances. A lens hood is sufficient protection provided you don't swing your camera around like a slingshot.
Bottomline: the lens cap is on when the camera is switched off, and the lens cap is off when the camera is switched on.

Also, why always shoot with a hood? I thought they were only for when there is a light source close you the edge of your frame that could potentially spoil the photo, or when other excess light can enter?

"Other excess light" can enter your lens much more easily without a lens hood. There is stray light everywhere. More so if the humidity level is relatively high.
You get generally 'cleaner' exposures with the lens hood on.

And even if you do leave it on, there is still a chance for your lens to get scratched.

Only if you really try and do stupid things.

I heard that a polariser works best at 90 degrees to the sun, is this true?

Correct. At right angles the effect is max. The greater the deviation from that right angle, the lesser the polarizing effect.
Which also explains why wide angle lenses don't work with polarizers.

It depends on what you want. I find myself in many landscape situations where my camera cannot capture the whole dynamic range of the scene because the sun is too bright, hence the need to an ND grad. I don't want to use HDR because it gives a very specific effect, I like the "single exposure" look.

If HDR results in a 'multi exposure look' that is because the editor made it so. In that case he/she has willfully 'overdone' the effect (par for the course, BTW).
The point of HDR is that you can make it look any way you want. Which you cannot with a single exposure.

Have fun!

 

[Mystwalker]

I do not see any distortion when using a UV filter so I keep it on lens full-time.

But then I'm not selling my services and do not look at every pixel.

It's a balance between, "perfect IQ" and "protecting front element of lens".

I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of former to increase latter a whee bit. A pro probably think the reverse.

 

[Alfred D.]

I do not see any distortion when using a UV filter so I keep it on lens full-time.

And you never will see a difference unless you shoot the same scene both with and without a UV filter and then put both images up side-by-side on your screen.

But then I'm not selling my services and do not look at every pixel.

It's a balance between, "perfect IQ" and "protecting front element of lens".

I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of former to increase latter a whee bit. A pro probably think the reverse.

Absolutely. It is a choice: either image quality is important to you or it isn't...

 

[PhotoDonkey]

For the most part I keep my UV filter on at all times, but if I find I'm getting ghosting, I will take it off and be extra-careful.

I want to get a hood for my lens, but I've had a hard time determining what kind to get.

I have 2 Canon 58mm (diameter) lenses. Can I get away with a single hood for both, or does canon manufacture hoods for specific models of lenses?

 

[bhop]

The only real "Must-Haves" for me is a polarizer and a neutral density for when I need to cut back on light.

 

[Alfred D.]

For the most part I keep my UV filter on at all times, but if I find I'm getting ghosting, I will take it off and be extra-careful.

You will never be able to tell without comparison shots.

I want to get a hood for my lens, but I've had a hard time determining what kind to get.

I have 2 Canon 58mm (diameter) lenses. Can I get away with a single hood for both, or does canon manufacture hoods for specific models of lenses?

Did your lenses 'fall off a truck'? Because all lenses that I know of come complete with lens hood...
So where did yours go?

 

[bhop]

Did your lenses 'fall off a truck'? Because all lenses that I know of come complete with lens hood...
So where did yours go?

All of the used lenses i've bought have no hoods. My Nikon 50mm 1.8 didn't come with a lens hood and I bought it new.

 

[Mystwalker]

"L"s came with hood + carrying sack or lens bag.

Non "L" (28-135, 100macro, 50mm), no hood.

All brought from B&H, Adorama and B&H - reputable places so I doubt they are swiping the hoods

 

[PhotoDonkey]

You will never be able to tell without comparison shots.

I'm actually speaking from an experience, not in theory. I've taken pictures where the sun was ghosting, so I took the filters off for the shot.

Did your lenses 'fall off a truck'? Because all lenses that I know of come complete with lens hood...
So where did yours go?

One came with the camera, the other I purchased at Best Buy. From what I've read, Canon doesn't include hoods with their lenses.

 

[Alfred D.]

One came with the camera, the other I purchased at Best Buy. From what I've read, Canon doesn't include hoods with their lenses.

If, as Mystwalker says, "L"s come with a hood, but non "L"s don't, then there may be a lively market in Canon hoods. I would check Ebay and some of these photo forums' market threads.
Though one hood may fit both your 58mm ø Canon lenses' diameter, it will probably not provide adequate shielding for both. Because a hood's shape and size is particularly designed for only one focal length (the shortest in the case of a zoom lens). On other focal length lenses it will cause either vignetting, or provide not nearly enough shading of the lens. So that's useless.
In any case it is a better idea to have every lens complete with its own purpose-designed hood.

 

[PhotoDonkey]

Thanks for the advice. I'll look into it. I'd definitely like to try using hoods for protection instead of filters.

 

[Garbz]

I don't think this is entirely true. According to Snell's law, the speed and wavelength of light also change upon refraction. Whether or not that change occurs differentially with respect to various wavelengths of incident light I don't know, but if it did, you'd get CA.

Yeah but snells law for a straight pane of glass would mean no refraction for light incident at 90 degree, and assuming both sides of the glass are parallel (a good assumption for a good filter) if the wavelengths would spread on incidence to the first boundary, the exact inverse would happen on the incidence to the second boundary, cancelling the effect of CA, and also the effect of the refractive index. Which is why we see these filters as translucent.

Mind you on a cheap filter where the distortion in the glass is visible as a distinct loss of sharpness in the image (those cheap nasty Hoyas for example) would imply that the glass isn't of a constant refractive index, or both boundaries aren't parallel and at that point CA would rear its ugly head.

But you wouldn't see it on that filter through all the nasty flare :lmao:

 

[seabug]

I believe the must haves are the ND filters and if you have a clear horizon perhaps the ND grads. ND filters are great to cut down light to allow for a long exposure to get that milkly appearance of water falls or water movement. A polarizer is great for making clouds stand out against the sky and making greens such as in a forest pop. Polarizers are also good for shooting through windows and through water as they cut reflections. A lot of good advice. I also have a red and yellow filter which I find useful. You can get a lot of the filter effects though photoshop etc but there is nothing like getting it right off the hop. Happy shooting!

 

[Alfred D.]

Well, after all this jubilation it is maybe a bit sobering to also consider the trade-offs of those wonderful gadgets. Because there's always a flipside to everything.
While CPs are great for skies, and foliage, and reflections, they adversely affect reds in general and aren't flattering at all on skins.
While NDs are great to cut down light to allow for long exposures, they don't change the dynamic contrast range in a scene one bit! The mutual relationship of highlights and shadows doesn't change one iota. If your cam cannot grab the whole dynamic contrast range of a scene without an ND filter, adding one won't change that.

 

[Garbz]

While CPs are great for skies, and foliage, and reflections, they adversely affect reds in general and aren't flattering at all on skins.

You just gave me an excellent idea. CP to completely elminate specualr highlights off skin, combined with a 720nm IR filter. This would have to be shot on film given that typical digital camera would need an exposure value of about -2 or -3 whereas you could easily get a 10 or 11 out of film.

It would create the most perfect undead and creepy look in the subject. The CP would ensure the skin is feature less and has a constant tone, and the IR filter would make it white, and the eyes black.

If only it were a sunny day. Don't mind my derailing.