What filter/filters for 28-70 f/2.8?

[LAW2]

I am considering purchasing this lens. The best price I can find is $1,435. I want to get at least a UV filter to protect it from my fast moving 2-year old, but what advice would you have for brand or quality? What other filters would you recommend? I've read that a circular polarizer is what I need for outdoors and that square slide-in graduated ND filters work best so you can adjust them as needed. Sorry for so many questions but your answers are highly valued. Thanks

 

[Christie Photo]

I suppose to give the most useful answer, more info is needed. What kind(s) of images will you be making? Portraits? Landscapes? Architecture?

Pete

 

[Big Mike]

That is said to be a great lens...I'm sure you will love it.

I don't know too much about UV filters. B&W is a top name in filters. Hoya is also well known.

I definitely recommend a polarizer for outdoor photography.

I have a Cokin square filter system. You need the filter holder and an adapter for the size of your lens threads. With that lens...you would probably need the 'P' system rather than the smaller 'A' system. I actually haven't used my Cokin filters since I switched to digital.

That lens should come with a lens hood...it's a good idea to use it all the time. It's a solid hood, so it will also help protect the front of the lens.

 

[Tiberius]

Nikon or Canon? (If Canon makes a 28-70....theirs may be a 24-70, I forget)

If it's the Nikon (a fantastic lens), it takes a 77mm filter size. I'd start out with a decent UV or clear filter for protection (this has the potential to start a flame war, but since you mentioned it any way I figure it's safe) - make absolutely certain you get a multicoated one. Anything else will add more flare than you could ever imagine. After that, a good circular polarizer (Hoya HMC or Nikon Brand, B+W is also good but incredibly expensive) won't be cheap but will be a good long-term investment.

Past that it's personal preference. If you want to try IR, get an IR filter. If you want to capture motion blur, go for a set of ND filters. Up to you.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I wouldn't go with a slide in ND grad filters.

You need to decide what effect you want first.

 

[darich]

Nikon or Canon? (If Canon makes a 28-70....theirs may be a 24-70, I forget)

Canon DID do a 28-70 but it was replaced by the current 24-70 so it could be a Canon since Law2 doesn't say how old it is.

I have the 24-70 lens and love it. I almost always have my circular polarizer on although i rarely use trhe hood, My filter was cheap - approx £24 or $45.
i've never used a very expensive filter but i think it would be difficult to see a huge difference in the effect it has for the extra cash.

UV filter is a good idea and so is ND but as has been said - polarizer and ND would only be useful if your photography is suited to it.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I have this lens, and shoot without filters most of the time. There are various (recent) threads on this forum about filters that have shown me that a filter is usually a bad idea. No matter how you think about, putting a $60 piece of plastic in front of $1,500 worth of glass is not a good idea.

I've adopted the rule to shoot without filters, unless I need a specific effect - a polarizer for instance. The only time I put on my UV is if I am shooting around water spray that might damage my lens - such as a day by the pool.

There are some manufacturers who are quite good. I buy filters from Heliopan whenever they have a fitting product. They are VERY expensive compared to other filters, but are money well-spent.

 

[fmw]

I have run a pile of tests and, to make a long story short, using a UV filter to protect your lens won't have any impact on your images.

In very rare circumstances it is theoretically possible that you can develop some flare from the use of a filter but I have yet to encounter such a circumstance. Stacking filters is a bad idea from my experience but using one filter won't hurt your images.

The best filters are those with brass mounting rings because they do not get stuck as often as those with aluminum rings. They are all the same optically - just flat glass.

 

[dsp921]

They are all the same optically - just flat glass.

I disagree with this. There are many levels of quality of glass, not all filters are the same optically. There's the quality of the glass itself, the manufacturing process, coatings, clarity etc to consider. All can and will affect image quality.

If you must use a filter, don't put cheap ones on a quality lens. The Hoya UV (0) S-HMC is pretty good. I've had UV filters on my 28-70 and while the differences are slight, I can find them. Just from my personal experience. This is my free opinion, and you get what you pay for.

 

[LAW2]

Sorry, more information would be helpful. The primary purpose would be portraits of my 2.2 year old and 16 week old, outdoors and indoors. You know trying to capture those fleeting moments of childhood that will make you cry when they are all grown up. I got into this hobby to save $$ on "professional" pictures but this may have a bad decision. At least my wife and I are having fun with it. I also updated my signature line so you'll know what I am using.

I actually haven't used my Cokin filters since I switched to digital.

I wouldn't go with a slide in ND grad filters. You need to decide what effect you want first.

I guess you both are saying that digital allows you to PP to the same result as using graduated ND filters?

Thanks to everyone who has commented. Please feel free to continue. You are my best source of real world experience.

 

[dsp921]

The 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor is a very nice lens, I highly recommend it, mine is on the camera most of the time. Nikon announced the fall rebates and you can save $40 on that lens starting today.
As for the filters, I wouldn't say that any filter is necessary, you can get great shots without them. Get the lens and start shooting, if you find you need specific effects then you can start to look into filters. I don't have any and I'm happy with my images.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I guess you both are saying that digital allows you to PP to the same result as using graduated ND filters?

Usually very close, at least.


But I find the color gels for lights are really hard to make in photoshop. It's easier to just byu them.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I think with what you're planning on shooting a filter won't kill you. I prefer the protection of the hood because I bang the thing into walls a lot while having it slung over my shoulder.

I do a lot of long exposures - at night, with a tri-pod, and a filter - even a good one - will give you a lot of flare if the light is coming in from an acute angle.

A Polarizer is good outdoors, you can't really fake that in Photoshop, so that might come in handy, too.

 

[fmw]

I disagree with this. There are many levels of quality of glass, not all filters are the same optically. There's the quality of the glass itself, the manufacturing process, coatings, clarity etc to consider. All can and will affect image quality.

If you must use a filter, don't put cheap ones on a quality lens. The Hoya UV (0) S-HMC is pretty good. I've had UV filters on my 28-70 and while the differences are slight, I can find them. Just from my personal experience. This is my free opinion, and you get what you pay for.

I'm not hung up on getting the last word but I guess I should explain, since I obviously have little credibility with you. You can have the last word and I'll bow out of the debate since it isn't all that important to me.

All filters are the same optically. They are all made of optical glass, the same thing lenses are made from. There isn't an issue of quality of glass. If they are transparent before having any colors sandwiched with them they all transmit virtually all the light. That's all they need to do.

Filters only need to be ground flat in order for them not to be lenses instead of filters. Any filter manufacturer can do that. It is very simple for them. I don't understand your use of the term "clarity" because it has no bearing on filters as I've just discussed. I'll get to coatings in a minute.

I realize what you are saying is the popular belief which probably stems from effective marketing by high end filter manufacturers and oems. But I've run extensive tests. Very extensive. What I'm telling you is not an opinion or something I read somewhere or heard from someone else, it is the result of extensive testing involving a panel of pro photographers.

My testing showed that it was impossible to tell the difference between an expensive filter and an inexpensive one when mounted on a lens. Absolutely, completely impossible. A panel of pro photographers weren't able to discern differences. Their guesses were slightly worse than random. Yes, colors vary slightly from brand to brand, but not "optical quality."

Just like coating lenses can reduce flare, it can also reduce a filter's effectiveness at producing flare. However, the amount of flare reduction was never visible in any of my tests - nor was any flare visible for that matter. Nor did it matter whether the coated and non coated filters were expensive or not expensive. Yes I was able to get visible flare by stacking filters but not by using a single filter of any color, or lack of color.

The one thing that expensive filters have that really matters is better mounting rings. That is why I mentioned them in my post. I agree that people should buy good filters but not for the reasons you mention. Sorry, I just felt it was necessary to explain myself. Take care.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Fred - it's nice to hear from someone who's done the testing himself.

Which brands did you compare and which filters?

Thanks