Bored at work and found myself browsing Tiffen's website.

Does anyone use ND filters or are they just a gimmick?

Are Polarizers needed even if you post process your photos/videos?  Or are they still widely used/useful even if you post process?

Right now I run UV filters on all my lenses just for the protection aspect.

Any other filters some of you more expert photographers recommend people keep in their bag?

ND filters allow you to do things like take photos at much slower shutter speeds or wide open apertures in light that would normally over-expose the image if using slow shutter/ large aperture.  Useful for things like getting the silky water effect on streams/ rivers/ waterfalls.

Graduated ND filters can work when you have a large exposure range in the same image, like a sunrise image where reflected sunlight off an upper rock face overpowers the areas below still in shadow.

Polarizing filters are good for cutting some unwanted reflections out of the photo.  Sometimes, you just can't make it look right in post processing.

Exactly what JAFFE said about ND filters for the blury, dreamy-effect on water falls etc; on my Nikon D500, I can set the ISO down to 25 if need be, but Nikon advises that 100 is the lowest for best, general all around shooting.

As for the polarizer, I would take your camera out and shoot a bunch of photos for the particular locations that you like, some with- and and some without-, and look at the photos on a screen bigger than your camera to see for yourself whether you like the effects or not and decide for yourself. I find that when shooting wiht a polarizer the colors are more saturated, especially outdoors. I know some guys shoot with it indoors, I tried it but the effects are not that much. But there is a cost of ~1.5-2 stops, ie your f4 lens will now become a ~f/8 or so. I know you don't have a polarizer yet, but you may want to check with your friends etc and see if you can borrow one.

ND, ND Grad, reverse grad ND, and variable ND change how much light the camera sees. Depending on the brand, they can add a slight color shift, but it’s easy to fix in post with white balance changes. Or just use a grey card. But it’s how you can take super long shots, or even out exposure between land/sky, etc.

Circular Polarizers are useful within limits. They cut down on reflections, even ones you don’t see on leaves, water, etc. They also increase contrast and make skies a deeper blue. It’s a personal choice on using them, because in some spots they work great, others not so much.  Never never put one on a wide/ultrawode angle lens though as you’ll get weird effects if shooting the sky. In the woods/broken skyline they work well on them though. Clear skies get fucked up past 24mm or shorter though.

There are a million other filters out there two, but CP and ND are by far the most common. Color/warming, Star, etc are all more dedicated and specific things.

As for UV filters, I largely don’t use them with few exceptions. If there will be blowing sand or things that can scratch the front element, or if it’s a non-weathersealed lens and the potential for water to get in. Extra glass = lower focus quality and softer images, plus the chance for more internal reflections.

That said, I’m hoping to try a set of Nikon Arcrest filters soon. Testing shows they basically have zero effect on image quality with gold ring glass, are scratch resistant, oleophobic and hydrophobic, etc. but they’re basically a FL coated lens element in a filter ring. Around $80 a pop which really isn’t bad compared to a quality regular filter.

Ditto on what NorthPolar said. I tried a polarizer on my Nikon 10-24, and personally, I see nothing amiss, but that is a personal decision you should try on your own, on a non-critical assignment. I am a big advocate of thinking outside of the box, you may get something your like or not.

In addition to NorthPolar's comment about  Nikon Arcrest filters. I have  Hoya CPL HD3 UV filters which are supposed to be bullet-proof, and finger-print resistant, etc etc but dang those things are really expensive. I have the lower Hoya EVO which is not hardened, but multicoated and finger-print resistant one for my polarizer since I am not going use it that often. Many times out in the fied, I just use Windex and my t-shirt to wipe junk off the front end of my lens.

ETA: Sorry posted the name of the wrong Hoya filter line. The correct nomenclature should be HD3.

I'll buy a couple off of Amazon and practice.  Looking at purchasing a step-up ring to help allow for filters to be used on lenses with different thread sizes.

The ‘standard’ is 77mm for pro glass, and down to 52mm for lower level stuff. It does change though.  The big thing to remember is with step rings you’ll need to go a fair bit bigger to not get vignetting on images. To what degree, I couldn’t tell you though. Personally if I had a 77mm lens (they are all marked with a number followed by a 0 with strike through it for filter size) I’d probably use a 85 or 95mm filter to be safe. But that’s because there are so many step ring and filter combos that can cause stuff.

Slimline filters are awesome, but spendy and honestly a pain in the ass to get off on occasion since they’re 1/2 the thickness usually.

Manfrotto makes a mount set called Xume I want to try though. You need slimline filters, but it’s basically two magnetic slimline mounts. One screws onto the filter, the other to the lens, so you can just snap the filter or lens cap in place. Don’t have a need currently, but is neat.

I'd like to keep my UV filter on at all times, unless shooting on tripod, because me and my family are klutz's.

I'll take a look at the Arcrest filters, I assume they are universal and can be mounted on non-Nikkor lenses.

My lens inventory is quite small.  My largest filter size is 49mm.  Perhaps I should try and standardize my current lenses to 52mm?

When I expand into the more higher quality zoom lenses I can always purchase duplicate larger filters.

Also I see Tiffen makes a wide angle polarizer, perhaps I can try this on my 16 F2.8?

http://store.tiffen.com/item/WACP-FILTERS/Wide-Angle-Circular-Polarizers/

I tried slimline polarizers, and they are a pain, really tough to get off, the stationary part is too small so there is nothing to grip on to. I would skip them unless you are experiencing vignetting.

I stopped using screw on filters and use drop in filters. I use nd grad and nd filters. A polarizer isn’t really needed as it is easily done in Lightroom with the dehaze slider but it can be nice to have if you want to eliminate editing. I’ve filters are useless.

My issue with screw in is sometimes they get really tight and if your in a hurry due to rapidly changing conditions it can be a pain.

A polarizing filter cannot be fully replaced with digital editing.  There are definitely times where a polarizer is the right tool for the job.

I used to be a die-hard UV filter guy.  Then I started really reading about them, and discovered they make pretty crappy lens protectors (except for blowing snow/sand).  The front element on your lens is some pretty tough glass.  Everybody's got that story about how they banged the camera against something and the filter broke, and THANK GOD I HAD THAT SACRIFICIAL FILTER ON THERE!!, but I betcha if you didn't have the filter you've have no damage to the lens.  Filters are thin and fragile.  Front elements are not, and are engineered for the possibility of some banging around.

Then there's the image degradation.  Granted, a quality filter shouldn't affect the image, but you're probably not buying $150 filters.  You're probably buying $20 filters.

Now I use no UV filters.  I do, however, religiously use lens hoods, as I think they offer more impact/scratch protection than a filter.

I never use UV filters but will use Nikon NC filters if I think I need the protection.

1. Yes, I use them when I need to slow the shutter. Absolutely useful.

2. Yes, I find polarizers (CPLs) useful. Post-processing can add the saturation of a CPL, but will not be able to eliminate the glare like a CPL can. However, one needs to understand the limitations of the CPL. It will NOT work as expected when pointing your lens toward or away from the sun. Also, as others here have said, you will get annoying U- or V-shaped effects in the sky when you're using a CPL on a wide angle lens. This can - and usually does for me - make it not worth the effort when the scene will include a lot of the sky.

3. My opinion is "don't bother" with UV filters. As others have said, the front element of your lens is a lot tougher than you might think and scratches on it are rarely a problem. See the video below for a demonstration. The same video describes a way to simulate the effect of an ND filter - and it does work, but it requires a LOT of photos.

4. The only filters in my kit these days are a 3-stop ND, a 6-stop ND, and a CPL. I used to carry graduated ND filters, but I found myself using them so rarely that I stopped bothering to keep them in the bag. I'd rather take a bracketed series of shots and combine them in post than deal with the effects of an ND grad cutting across things like trees or hills. Plus, my D850's dynamic range is such that I can usually take a single slightly over-exposed image and use it to create a single frame HDR. I used the same technique on my older D5000, too, so it's not only the absolute latest sensors that enable this technique, but you need to shoot and process raw images to get this type of post-processing performance. I've seen some interesting effects from "mist" filters, but they haven't excited me enough to break open my wallet.

Here is a recent shot I took using a CPL and the "behind the shot" view I took with my Samsung S8 (no filter). The CPL worked well with this scene because it did not include any sky and it was cloudy so that I could point the lens in any direction and get the full benefit of the CPL. You'll notice a significant reduction in glare on the leaves, log, rocks, and stream along with an increase in saturation. The only one of those effects that can be replicated in post is saturation.

Attached File
  Attached File


Tony Northrup - "You (probably) DON'T Need Polarizing, UV, or ND Filters: Simulate them for FREE!"


Tony makes some good points, but the real theme of this video is photographers don't need to buy these filters when they're first starting out. As with lenses - or even bodies - identify a specific problem you're experiencing that is best solved with a particular filter before spending the money. I take a lot of landscape shots, frequently with running water that I want to blur, and I have a "photographer's wife" with a definite limit to her patience. (She enjoys taking snapshots, but she leaves what she calls the "serious photography" to me.) Using ND filters allows me to reduce the time it takes to achieve the desired effect and keep my wife happy when I'm getting these shots during our vacations or getaways.

Scratches on my glass would bug the fuck out of me, even on my Dollar Tree lenses.

Zack mentioned its only a cosmetic defect, not a functional one, but it would still bug me.

Next time I shoot photos I'll take some with and without my UV filters and see how much IQ is lost.

Great advice!  Perhaps I am searching for a solution to a problem I have not yet encountered.

The video was interesting, I don't think I would beat on a lens thats attached to my camera though.

Ditto on the scratches on the front glass element, it is like the scratches on a blued gun, so personally I would put the clear lens protector, way easier to replace; I am guessing but I bet the importer won't be able to replace the front element, and must be sent back to the factory since it probably needs lots of specialized equipment.

You probably won't notice any difference with or without a UV filter, unless you are shooting a test pattern. I find it easier to give a quick cleaning with my t-shirt etc in the field; but the day before an important shoot, I always give the equipment a quick cleaning, ie cleaning the sensor and filters, and checking the setting etc  just to be sure everything is copacetic.

I'm pretty much as far from pro status as you can get.  My lenses go filter-less probably 98% of the time.  I use filters for specific purposes, and only use protection filters for situations like wind driven salt spray or sand, and I don't buy cheap filters.  IMHO hoods provide some impact/ fingers-on-glass protection in addition to their primary purpose.

The magnitude of the effect of a polarizing filter is driven by the angle of the sun. With extreme wide-angle photos, this means the impact of the filter changes dramatically across the image. This can cause some serious ugliness, especially if the filter is mediocre quality. If you use a polarizer, part of the experiment is tinkering with the placement of the sun relative to the camera. you are shooting into the sun, or with the sun behind you, it will likely not matter THAT much. If you are shooting with the sun off to one side, you will see the impact.

-shooter