to filter or not to filter

[nyc_jcf]

Just looking for some advice. I just purchased a canon 10d, and a 28-135 lens IS USM lens. Can someone recommend a set of filters to start off with (i.e., do I need a UV filter, what about a polarizing filter, or what about color enhancing filters?). I am relatively new, but will be shooting mostly nature and landscape shots. Can anyone recommend some filters to start off with, and does the manufacturer make a huge difference? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[GarySchulze]

First: Some people like to keep a UV filter on their lenses all the time to protect the lens from accidents. Other people do not, because they don't want to any added imperfection between subject and sensor. I'd say that until your (and my) photography gets so good that this makes a difference, add the UV filter for the physical protection. It's cheaper to replace a filter than a lens.

Second: Buy a good circular polarizer. This filter is an absolute must for anyone doing landscapes, not only for what it does to the sky, but how it helps for glare and reflections off of foliage, water, and barn roofs. It must be a circular polarizer. A linear polarizer will screw up the autofocusing. As far as brands, stay with the name brands - you get what you pay for. The freebies that photo stores give you are worth every cent you paid. Multicoated is supposed to be good.

As far as other filters, if you intend to use Photoshop, you don't need any color enhancing filters, since you can do that with PS. For landscapes, graduated neutral density filters are helpful when you have a scene that has too much dynamic range, such as a mountain with snow in the background and forest in the foreground. It's possible to handle this in PS, so choose your poison. If you do get such filters, you should only get the rectangular ones that fit in something like the Cokin P holder. This is so you can adjust the graduation up and down as well as twist it so you can match the horizon. Such filters come in 1, 2, and 3 stop graduations (from clear to dark) and as hard and soft. Hard and soft describe how fast the transition is made. Since the 10D has a smaller sensor (than 35mm) and therefore uses only the central part (effectively, so no nitpicking, please) of the lens, I found that the soft transition was too soft. If you get two of these filters you can use them together as well. Don't worry too much about vignetting with the 10D - you can mount two filters and the Cokin P holder with no vignetting.

[nyc_jcf]

GJSchulze

Thanks, it's people such as yourself that make this site so great, and photography enjoyable to newbies such as myself. A sincere thanks.

[Mark_Cooper]

I spent some time researching the best type of polarizing filter to use with a Canon 1DS. After much deliberation I purchased a B+W Kaisseman MRC Circular Polarizer.

Since owning this polarizer I can say that is extremely good, and of an excellent quality. I can thoroughly recommend one of these. It is multi-coated to harden it and stop reflection, and the body is made from brass, to allow a good fit without sticking to the lens.

[Rob_Whitehead]

I'd concur with the above advice.
Be aware that all UV filters are not created equal. Hoya for example makes standard, HMC and super HMC versions. The difference is in the multicoating on the filter. The more you pay, the better the filter. How much you need to pay depends on the quality of glass you're mounting it on. I would use HMC or super HMC on good canon glass. B+W also make good, slightly more expensive filters. Slim filters are available for wide angle lenses to prevevnt vignetting, but I would expect this not to be a problem due to the 10D's crop factor.

Check out www.2filter.com for some useful information.

I'm interested to know re: the polariser comments above whether people have actually noticed the difference between the most expensive eg the B+W model mentioned, and the mid range filters eg multicoated Hoyas or standard B+W CPLs. Most of us would like to avoid paying more than we need to, and it's always interesting to know at which price point the law of diminishing returns starts to become important! Yes, you get what you pay for, but that doesn't always mean the most expensive option is the right one.

In terms of graduated neutral density, these are a must along with the two above filters. You use it to darken your skies to prevent loss of highlights. (You can try to work around this in photoshop with some success, but it is often better to shoot the photo properly in the first place!). I use Cokin filters. They are nasty, cheap plastic and generally considered to be rubbish! I'd advise using a TIFFEN or similar brand if you can afford it, but they're about $120. The Cokin is better than nothing.

I've enjoyed using an INFRARED filter on my canon digital rangefinders. I believe that the 10D isn't very sensitive for infrared, and therefore this filter wouldn't be very useful. Anyone have any exdperience? (This is certainly not an essential filter, BTW).

The other filter I'm considering for landscape/nature work is a Red Filter 25 or 29. This is meant to be useful for black and white landscapes, providing sky clarity/darkening that can't be fully emulated using photoshop. Once again, has anyone actually got experience using this type of filter for this application on the 10D?

Finally, the other filter which can be useful is a neutral density filter. This basically allows you to use a slower shutter speed, useful in nature photography for producing the cotton-candy effect on waterfalls.

Cheers,

Roberto