Lens Filters - What's Needed?

IanD

IanD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,601
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon all

I really want to get back into my landscape and seascape photography this year, as I have been so lazy and need to inspire myself once again.

On the subject of filters, I'm after recommendations on what's a decent one out there at the mo, but also what's better?

Do I go rectangular, square, circular?

Do I invest in magnetic, and if so, what are the better ones?

Do I also add graduated filters to the purchase?

I'd be interested in all of your opinions and advice.

Thanks.

Ian
 
I have a whole stack of Lee Filters both 100mm and the Seven 5 systems but TBH I rarely use most of them with my digital cameras, they get more use with my Film Cameras. That said, for digital I will use a Polariser frequently, varioous grades of ND for slowing the shutter with moving water etc and occasionally Grads although the DR of digital sensors will usually cope with most sky/ground contrast. Grads are much more use on seascapes (although I rarely do these nowadays).

If you are planning to use Grads I would say a square (grads are rectangular for these systems) system will be more flexible plus you can get the adapter rings for each lens so you don't need to worry about multiples of round filters to fit each lens.

If you aren't going down the grad route then you may be better with one of the ropung magnetic systems to fit your biggest front element and get step up rings from your smallest front element etc.
 
Like Paul I also have a ton of filters, sadly I hardly ever use them
Personally I prefere the round filters, but it means either carrying a set for each lens, or limiting your lens choice, so square would seem to make more sense.
The ones I do occasionally use are a grad grey for skies, a neutral density for longer exposures (or mostly wider apertures) and a pola filter. Those are the ones I actually carry sometimes, unless I'm after say milky waterfalls or something specific.
Could I live without any... Honestly, yes.
Magnetic seem clever, but I would be afraid of loosing them, and I'm not sure any magnet near a camera is a good idea (having killed a Pentax shutter with a magnetic car mount some years back) mind that was a strong magnet....
 
For digital I use magnetic ND's of various density and a polariser. I use Maven filters which I have found to be very good quality and they hold on very securely.

Get the size for your largest lens and then step-down rings to fit any smaller lenses.

The Lee square system seems very well thought of, I personally haven't used them.
 
Just a polarizer for me. Pretty much everything else can be replicated in PP.
 
One thing I find a little misleading with regard circular/magnetic over square, is how people (YouTube reviewers etc) go on about how easy magnetic are to attach to the lens and user friendly they are in ease of use over square. My argument is that they dont show you all the faff regarding lens caps and lens hoods that no longer fit, which 95% of us like to have on in our camera bags. (the same biggest issue of square filters) It might be less faff if you can or want to keep the adaptor ring on and get special lens cap and dont use the hood. or get a set for each size lens, and you can use your original lens caps and hoods, but unlikely really. It's pretty much the same faff as square filters. (and slowing down as a photographer is never a bad thing)

having said all that waffle, a set of Nds and a polariser, rarely use the grads as 99% easier and more versatile to bracket or just use the dynamic range of modern cams.
 
Regarding Grads (digital only) in the type of Moorland landscapes that I do I find that applying the graduation in Lightroom afterwards is easier because if I reduce the exposure using the grad tool it almost always includes a section of the ground (hills etc) which I then lift the shadows in the grad area and it gives a more natural look. It doesn't always work if I have reduced exposure too much.
 
I've always used screw on filters. For a good few years now on my Sony kit my 3 Sony primes & my longer Tamron zoom are all 67mm filter threads so I don't have all the step up faff - Unless I use the Voigtlander 40mm (58mm) or the film camera (52mm) :)

I typically use a Cinebloom 10% filter the most, followed by a CPL for cars/water (I rarely use them for skies anymore) followed by a 6 stop ND for coastal/long exposure. I do have a Cinebloom 20% and 3 & 10 stop ND's but they don't get as much use. I do have an old Cokin 2 stop grad filter which I sometimes use for landscape with the film camera IF I remember to take it with me :)

For the X100f I have a 1/8th mist & a Shortstache Everyday which doesn't get the use it should for what it cost :ROFLMAO:

So, to sum up :ROFLMAO: I would go solid ND & CPL for landscape/seascape - screw or magnetic is probably budget dependant :) I do like the sound/appeal of magnetic, but seeing as I already have my filters in screw on...... ;)
 
Thanks so much for your in-depth replies.

They are very helpful and given me lots to think about.

I might invest in some magnetic circular ones as I do think it best to keep a set in my bag.

Maybe also get a set of step up rings to accommodate my lenses. I think that I'd only need 3 and they would not take up much more room.

Again, thanks all
 
High quality UV is usually a good idea for outdoor use to protect your investment. It will not improve the image but may save the lens from scratching, denting and dust.

Cpl is sometimes helpful but if used incorrectly can quickly destroy image. Ultrawides and clear skies are usual scenarios when this is best avoided.

Nd of some sort maybe helpful for achieving certain slow exposure results . I hardly bother these days though. Mainly useful for water images

Square systems, etc. this is 2025 so don't waste your money, time, and image quality on this antiquated workaround. It never works as it should, it's basically utter crap

There is no need to spend the money here beyond pure basics. Just get good with it and if you really need something then buy on merit
 
Last edited:
Other than. CPL and a skylight/UV/protection filter for use only in hazardous environments there’s no need for filters with digital. Everything else is better done in PP.

And spend as much as you can afford, and I also wouldn’t bother with square, lens hoods exist for a reason.
 
The answer to your question really depends on which lenses you plan to be using. I should add “now and in the future”, as top-quality filters will last through gear changes, if they have been carefully considered before buying.

If your lenses all have the same filter diameter, you can buy circular ones, whether screw-on or magnetic. But what if you buy a different lens down the road? Or even change brands entirely? Will you have to discard all your filters and get new ones, even though the old ones were quite satisfactory? Will you have to try and re-sell them, at a significant loss?

For that reason, I always bought square or rectangular filters from the day Cokin introduced them for general photography back in the previous millennium. I do not use filters very frequently, so a couple of gray ones (Neutral Density) for long exposure, maybe a graduated (therefore rectangular) one, and of course a circular polarizer, the only one that needs to remain circular to be able to be easily rotated to produce its effect.

I use a NiSi V7 filter holder and 100-mm filters. As I sometimes use a Nikkor 19mm tilt-shift lens that has a very large and protruding front element, I also have a larger NiSi S6 holder with a couple of 150-mm filters, as the 100-mm ones are too small for that lens.

Regarding filter brands, I use Heliopan and Blackstone. Don’t skimp on filters, as even the best of them do damage your image quality (they were not integrated into the optical formula by the engineers who designed your lens), only ever so slightly if they’re top-notch. And once again, if well chosen, they will last you a lifetime —a bit like tripods— so they’re a long–term investment. ;)
 
UV filters are useful in hot damp environments when your lens is cold. The kind of place where condensation is running down the walls. The filter warms up a lot quicker than the front element of the lens so the condensation clears quicker. Most of these places involve shooting at short ranges and in very low light so loss of image quality is not a big worry.

This won't be relevant to most photography.
 
It depends very much on what you want to achieve, for most a CPL & perhaps some ND filters are all that are useful.

I often shoot with a Full spectrum converted camera (which records UV/visible & near IR). So I have uses for lots of filters others would find a waste of space. Many old standard filters transmit IR as well as their visual band so these can give effects not replicateable in post. Special UV/IR block filters allow my converted cameras to work as normal cameras. With a few lenses I can use UV pass filters (that block visual light) to get interesting images comprised of UV & IR, the degree of UV contribution in these is very unpredictable, depending on the lens, lighting filter,...

Few lenses transmit significant UV, & most digital cameras won't detect much of it, so these filters are generally only useful a a fragile spray/fingerprint catcher.
Graduated filters & colour correction types are now generally better treated in post (even for processing minimalists), though colour filters in front of a light source can still be a benefit.

The question of mounting format often comes down to the lenses & filters you plan on using. Graduated filters pretty much demand a square type mount that allows their height to be adjusted. If you have a number of different filter thread sizes on your lenses the square format also wins out. Otherwise I prefer round filters even when a few stepping rings are needed. I have found light leeks around the rear of a square filter can become noticeable when dark filters are in use.
 
IanD said:
Afternoon all

I really want to get back into my landscape and seascape photography this year, as I have been so lazy and need to inspire myself once again.

On the subject of filters, I'm after recommendations on what's a decent one out there at the mo, but also what's better?

Do I go rectangular, square, circular?

Do I invest in magnetic, and if so, what are the better ones?

Do I also add graduated filters to the purchase?

I'd be interested in all of your opinions and advice.

Thanks.

Ian
Click to expand...
Like some others on here I very rarely use my grad filters. I used to use them all the time for sunsets/sunrises and the like but now I prefer to bracket and blend in post as not matter how good your filters are they’ll cause some flare when the sun’s in frame or just out of frame.

ND filters I use quite a bit. For landscapes I use them for ‘cotton candy’ water, and for motorsports I use them so that I can use slow shutter and wide aperture. My preference is circular so that I can still use lens hoods.

I can’t remember the last time I used a polarising filter, I guess the only time would be to reduce reflections in water. I don’t generally use them for landscapes any more as I tend to shoot with UWA and polarisers can cause and uneven effect in the sky.
 
I have a 10 stop ND and a CPL, both of the circular variety from Urth.

10 Stop, I use a lot, I like long exposures.

CPL... Never really found it to be that useful, I've seen the arguments that is removes reflection on water, increases colours etc, but it always looks un-natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top