Filter? Hoya, Tiffen, B&W and others?

padocon

Hi all!
I have decided to take the plunge and buy the Nifty 50!
Just wondering your opinions of filter brands, Hoya, Tiffin, B&W ect
Which is the best? I want it to protect the lens from scratches dust dirt ect. I know it de-grades the quality a little but its a necessity!


This one hereon Amazon thoughts?

Thanks in advance for your help!:)

petercox

Any of those should be fine, in fairness. The B&W would be the top end choice.

Is it really a necessity? No - I have about 8k worth of professional glass and never use a UV filter for protection, and I wouldn't be exactly easy on equipment. Never had a problem.

You just have to take care of the lens!

melekalikimaka

petercox wrote: »

Is it really a necessity? No

could say the same about seat belts...

padocon

I find it hard to take care. Its a necessity for me.

Sleepy

Didn't really think it was worthwhile for such a cheap lens...

sineadw

its ALWAYS worthwhile IMHO

the_tractor

For B/W film it's probably ok to buy a cheaper one.
I have Hoya ones, and they are grand. Not the expensive ones, just the cheaper ones.
I'd rather have to replace a 20euro filter than a 200euro lens.:)

padocon

Sleepy wrote: »

Didn't really think it was worthwhile for such a cheap lens...

10euro better than 100. You don't know what I'm like. I am terrible with lens's!

kumate_champ07

I wouldnt use a cheap filter even if its a cheap lens, Id rather use no filter.

the b&w multicoated UV filters are supposed to be the best. some of the newer types of filters are water repellent and anti static to keep dust away. I'm saving up for some b&w mrc uv filters, for me they are mostly for easier cleaning rather than protection against damaging the front element.

The UV filters dont really improve image quality with dslr's as digital sensors are less sensitive to UV light as film is. So you would be just as well to get a clear protective filter if youre not gonna be shooting film.

padocon

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I wouldnt use a cheap filter even if its a cheap lens, Id rather use no filter.

the b&w multicoated UV filters are supposed to be the best. some of the newer types of filters are water repellent and anti static to keep dust away. I'm saving up for some b&w mrc uv filters, for me they are mostly for easier cleaning rather than protection against damaging the front element.

The UV filters dont really improve image quality with dslr's as digital sensors are less sensitive to UV light as film is. So you would be just as well to get a clear protective filter if youre not gonna be shooting film.

Im shooting in digital. I see your point. B&W start at 25 euro the nifty 50 costs 90 euro ish. So its not that economical for that lens.

I don't know what to do, one dis-improves quality if it is used.

Fionn

filters can be expensive!! :rolleyes:



the replacement for this 82mm piece of crap is going to be expensive!

Anouilh

I was told recently that filters are going out of fashion thanks to the post-processing programs that can burn, dodge and generally "improve" a photo.

Have others found that this is so?

petercox

There are three sorts of filters that photographers use.

1) Protective filters which essentially do nothing optically but serve to break before the lens does. These include clear filters and UV filters.
2) 'Effect' filters which seek to alter the scene and make it something it's not. Generally very gimmicky, serious photographers don't use them. One possible exception to this list is the neutral density filter which allows the use of a long exposure where it would otherwise be impossible.
3) Utility filters that enable the capture of elements of the scene that wouldn't otherwise be possible and which help create separation of the elements of the photograph. These include graduated neutral density filters and polarizers.

For an example of the use of graduated neutral density filters, see my article on the subject. Many more articles can be found on my tutorials page.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

I was told recently that filters are going out of fashion thanks to the post-processing programs that can burn, dodge and generally "improve" a photo.

Have others found that this is so?

It's probably true to an extent, Most digital B&W shooters for example wouldn't use filters, but do a channel mixer or something similar in photoshop to do the conversion. However there are instances where no amount of post pro can substitute. Polarising or ND filters for example. Grad filters can get you an exposure in one shot that you might not get otherwise. They're probably all the more important nowadays with the limited dynamic range of digital compared with film.

petercox

Daire -
You'd be surprised at the dynamic range of today's digital SLRs. As an example, DXO ranks the 5D Mk II as having just over 11 stops at ISO 100.

This is certainly a lot greater than slide film, and I'd imagine most negative film as well.

That being said, there are times when using graduated filters is a must - but then again, you can always layer exposures in Photoshop to get the same result.

I prefer the ND filters though

Cheers,
Peter

Valentia

We were always told that transparancy film had one stop latitude either way. It could of course be pushed further but to retain natural charachretistics the latitude is very small. B&W film has about 3 stops either way and colour negative about 2.5 to be safe.

I must say, using the 5D MkII, I don't see enything like 11 stops unless it's 5 in one direction and 6 in the other? My guess would be 4 or 5 either way withot it looking false.

Regarding what filter to use with the nifty 50. The cheapest respected name you can get. No point spending any more. Though the nifty 50 is a fine lens it is not the sharpest on the planet.

petercox

If you're not shooting RAW, you probably won't see that much dynamic range on the 5D Mk II. You also won't see it unless you're doing some postprocessing to improve separation of the shadow tones, but I certainly see it in my landscape work.

There's no such thing as 'x one way and y the other' - dynamic range is measured from lowest brightness captured (i.e. the point at which noise becomes greater than the signal) to the highest brightness captured (where highlights burn out).

Cheers,
Peter

kumate_champ07

Valentia wrote: »

Though the nifty 50 is a fine lens it is not the sharpest on the planet.

It's sharper at every corresponding aperture than the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS
It's sharper than the 35mm f1.4L at f5.6

Simplicius

Anouilh wrote: »

I was told recently that filters are going out of fashion thanks to the post-processing programs that can burn, dodge and generally "improve" a photo.

Not in my analog world ... I don't go anywhere without a combination of filters.

From reading the thread I am surprised to hear digital has surpassed film in the latitude available stop wise either side of correct exposure.

On filters generally, there are equally an important investment as the lens... buy a filter that is equally rated to the lens quality. maybe 10 - 15% is a rule of thumb for costing. ( this is wildly generalistic) I learned though cheap filters are a waste of money, I was test running a lens last week and slapped a cheap Jessops yellow filter on it -- took 50% with it on and 50% without... yes contrast is less without but sharpness is far superior. I have never found any fall off on sharpness with using my Nikon or B&W filters...

Step up rings at least mitigate some of the cost by increasing lens you can use your base filter collection with...

Nisio

I find with the nikon 50mm that the front element is so recessed I'm happy without a protective filter

TheDriver

always found ebay cheap filters work grand, use the CPLs no problem and don't cost much. Just my experience.

padocon

bedlam wrote: »

Get a lens hood? $20 from Kea.

Got one off Ebay! Thanks

Valentia

petercox wrote: »

If you're not shooting RAW, you probably won't see that much dynamic range on the 5D Mk II. You also won't see it unless you're doing some postprocessing to improve separation of the shadow tones, but I certainly see it in my landscape work.

I always shoot RAW. If a photo was adjusted by 5 stops I would definitely be able to tell, never mind 11. There is a point where the adjustment becomes false. I regularly see it on photos where people use the graduated gradient in Lightroom. I actually don't know of any software that will allow you to "push" or "pull" a RAW file by 11 steps?

Valentia

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

It's sharper at every corresponding aperture than the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS
It's sharper than the 35mm f1.4L at f5.6

The 50mm 1.8? No it's not. In fact it's the very subtle softness that makes it what it is.

petercox

Valentia -
Who said anything about pushing or pulling by 11 stops? 11 stops represents the TOTAL dynamic range.

Peter

Valentia

Who said anything about pushing or pulling by 11 stops? 11 stops represents the TOTAL dynamic range.

petercox wrote: »

the 5D Mk II as having just over 11 stops at ISO 100.

A film/slide/sensor can be exposed for any point within it's dynamic range. It can also, with less flexibility, be processed within a tolerance, depending on the exposure, to a specific point within that range.

Now the processing of a RAW file is done on the computer and if a sensor has a dynamic range of 11 then it is possible to get detail anywhere within that range from the RAW negative. So it would be possible, for example, to do 11 seperate files from the RAW file and blend them together to build a shot that has the full 5D Mk II dynamic range.

I wouldn't fancy looking at that photo though. I'd imagine it would make HDR bearable.

petercox

Valentia -
I think you misunderstand what dynamic range is. A good definition is:

Maximum dynamic range is the greatest possible amplitude between light and dark details a given sensor can record, and is expressed in EVs (exposure values) or f-stops, with each increase of 1 EV (or one stop) corresponding to twice the amount of light. Dynamic range corresponds to the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture (saturation) and the lowest brightness it can capture (typically when noise is more important than signal, i.e., a signal-to-noise ratio below 0 dB).

Your talk of processing eleven files from the RAW image and blending them has nothing to do with this. It's a simple measurement - make a photograph of a scene with a known dynamic range. Check the resulting photograph to see in how many of the scene's EV steps you can see detail. That number represents the dynamic range of the camera.

As you go down through the dynamic range towards the shadows, quality lessens as the signal to noise ratio gets worse. For more reading on the subject, see my article on exposing to the right.

We should wrap this up as this thread has gone way off topic. Don't take my word for it anyway, DXO are an internationally respected imaging company who know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than you or me.

Peter

Valentia

This is not at all off topic. It is completely relevant to the use of filters because when processing a RAW file it is now possible, through things like the gradient tool in Lightroom, to re create a real ND filter. It is an amazing development and not one I'm sure a lot of people appreciate. Some still equate it to the Gradient tool in Photoshop. It is well removed from that.

Your definition changes nothing that I have said. The ratio exists in every RAW file. The same as it does in every negative or slide. I believe that there may be 11 stops on a 5D MkII but it has not got the same charachretistics as film. The dynamic range of slide is not exactly the same as film either because of contrast considerations.

We may be going into a little more detail than necessary but as I say it is totally on topic. Filters use dynamic range (especially ND filters) as their tool.

DXO may be able to measure the mathematical dynamic range but they are not measuring the different charachteristics of each medium which is even more important when it comes to filters. It would be worth Googling dynamic range and contrast to understand what I'm talking about.

petercox

It think we might be arguing past one another. You may be trying to convince me of something of which I'm already aware, but you're not being terribly clear in your phraseology. It's an occupational hazard on these forums.

The basic issue which sparked this is that someone mentioned that grads are more necessary with digital cameras than they were with film because digital cameras have lower dynamic range. That used to be true, but hasn't been for some time (at least among digital SLRs).

The facts are:

Newer digital SLRs have dynamic ranges that easily exceed slide film (particularly contrasty media like Velvia) and are probably the equal to colour of B&W negative.

Each camera has its own characteristic look - the differences tend to be quite subtle between digital cameras, but are there. This look is different to film, just as different films all have their own characteristic look. Although how this is related to dynamic range and the use of filters that control it, I have no idea - but you did bring it up.

Graduated filters are very useful, and I continue to use them, even in situations where I could get away without doing so. However, blending of multiple exposures (by layering in Photoshop, not necessarily by using HDR processes) has replaced grads for many photographers. Indeed, this is something I do where the use of a grad is not possible.

That's my last word on the subject.

Peter

Valentia

petercox wrote: »

but you're not being terribly clear in your phraseology. It's an occupational hazard on these forums.

Really? I think I get it now.

kumate_champ07

Valentia wrote: »

The 50mm 1.8? No it's not. In fact it's the very subtle softness that makes it what it is.

well according to mtf charts by dpreview it is.

Valentia

Feck off. Ye are all ganging up on me now!