Filters for what purpose? Outside of polarizer and maybe a graduated neutral density filter, most all other effects can be effectively done in software..

If you are looking for lens protection only, the lens hood will provide better protection in most situations. The only excpetion would be if there is the possbility of salt spray or something similiar getting on the lens.....i.e waves, etc.....

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

Noted that you'll be in port cities..

If you're going to be shooting waves on a sunny day, or even shooting some other outdoors with a blue sky you may want to consider a circular polarizer..

I say 'may', because.

- the effects are a matter of taste(ex. waves reducing specular reflections; sky deeper blue)- the light loss is significant when using one- they can be expensive, depending on how far you're willing to go(ex. B+W Kaesemann, Singh-Ray).

Some of the effects of a circular polarizer are relatively difficult to emulate in software, 'tho, so in cases where they're useful (like trying to photograph fish in a pond without the reflections on the surface getting in the way) they're really useful...

John Glover wrote:.

Filters for what purpose? Outside of polarizer and maybe a graduatedneutral density filter, most all other effects can be effectivelydone in software..

If you are looking for lens protection only, the lens hood willprovide better protection in most situations. The only excpetionwould be if there is the possbility of salt spray or somethingsimiliar getting on the lens.....i.e waves, etc.....

Outdoors mainly. I espect sunny and warm weather on Hawaii, and plan to shoot lots of landscape and macro pictures...

Leejay Wu wrote:.

Noted that you'll be in port cities..

If you're going to be shooting waves on a sunny day, or even shootingsome other outdoors with a blue sky you may want to consider acircular polarizer..

I say 'may', because.

- the effects are a matter of taste(ex. waves reducing specular reflections; sky deeper blue)- the light loss is significant when using one- they can be expensive, depending on how far you're willing to go(ex. B+W Kaesemann, Singh-Ray).

Some of the effects of a circular polarizer are relatively difficultto emulate in software, 'tho, so in cases where they're useful (liketrying to photograph fish in a pond without the reflections on thesurface getting in the way) they're really useful..

I have thought about getting a POL filter. Is a cirkular a special one, or... ? I think I once heard something about that you have to change the placement of the POL filter if you switch from shooting landscape to portrait (here I mean the orientation of the image... wide vs. tall). Is that true?..

Your lens cost plenty bucks! You should always have some sort of filter on the end to protect the glass from scratches. Murphys law applies here, and a cheap UV filter will protect an expensive piece of glass..

As has been mentioned you don't NEED these filters (with the few named exceptions) for photographic purposes. But I have lenses that cost a thousand and up, and a cheap filter is a cheap investement..

Dave.

TimBrandt wrote:.

Leejay Wu wrote:.

Noted that you'll be in port cities..

If you're going to be shooting waves on a sunny day, or even shootingsome other outdoors with a blue sky you may want to consider acircular polarizer..

I say 'may', because.

- the effects are a matter of taste(ex. waves reducing specular reflections; sky deeper blue)- the light loss is significant when using one- they can be expensive, depending on how far you're willing to go(ex. B+W Kaesemann, Singh-Ray).

Some of the effects of a circular polarizer are relatively difficultto emulate in software, 'tho, so in cases where they're useful (liketrying to photograph fish in a pond without the reflections on thesurface getting in the way) they're really useful..

I have thought about getting a POL filter. Is a cirkular a specialone, or... ? I think I once heard something about that you have tochange the placement of the POL filter if you switch from shootinglandscape to portrait (here I mean the orientation of the image...wide vs. tall). Is that true?..

I am in a very similar situation (i.e. similar lens setup). A pro-photographer friend recommended a lens hood and polarizer filter as "essential" accessories. I have a Canon XTi 400D with a Canon 70-300mm IS lens, and I will buy another lens for the short-end. The 70-300mm uses 58mm filters, but the short lens will most likely use a different filter size. So, it looks like I'll need two sets of filters..

We're going on a safari to Botswana in August and I expect to do mainly wildlife photography with the long lens and landscape/city pictures with the short lens. Should I get hoods and circular polarizers for both lenses? Or would it make more sense to get a polarizer just for the short lens, for the benefit of "blue-er" sky and general reduction of reflections? What would the benefits of a polarizer for wildlife telephotography be?.

Are there some "plain glass" filters that merely protect the lens but don't swallow up a whole f-stop worth of light?..

TimBrandt wrote:.

I have thought about getting a POL filter. Is a cirkular a specialone, or... ? I think I once heard something about that you have tochange the placement of the POL filter if you switch from shootinglandscape to portrait (here I mean the orientation of the image...wide vs. tall). Is that true?.

From what I understand, regular (i.e. non-circular) polarizers will not work with most DSLRs because they interfere with the light metering and auto-focusing. So, you should probably buy a circular polarizer..

Polarizers do have a different effect based on their rotation. For example, if your scene has different reflecting surfaces at varying angles, you need to find the optimal rotation of the polarizer to cancel out reflections on a particular surface..

The polarizers minimum and maximum effects are separated by a 90-degree turn. So, if your polarizer is rotated so that is cancels out reflections optimally while you are in "landscape" mode it will show it's minimum effect when you rotate the camera to "portrait" mode. So, yes, the orientation of the camera does have an effect..

Also, I hear, that polarizers are problematic on lenses with a rotating front element, for very much the same reason...

Raner wrote:.

I am in a very similar situation (i.e. similar lens setup). Apro-photographer friend recommended a lens hood and polarizer filteras "essential" accessories. I have a Canon XTi 400D with a Canon70-300mm IS lens, and I will buy another lens for the short-end. The70-300mm uses 58mm filters, but the short lens will most likely use adifferent filter size. So, it looks like I'll need two sets offilters..

Get the filter for your largest lens, and step up ring for the smaller one..

We're going on a safari to Botswana in August and I expect to domainly wildlife photography with the long lens and landscape/citypictures with the short lens. Should I get hoods and circularpolarizers for both lenses? Or would it make more sense to get apolarizer just for the short lens, for the benefit of "blue-er" skyand general reduction of reflections? What would the benefits of apolarizer for wildlife telephotography be?.

A Polorizer is a nice filter. Saturates colors. But it's not really worth it for wildlife photography, unless the target is stationary and you have a tripod. It costs you two f stops..

Are there some "plain glass" filters that merely protect the lens butdon't swallow up a whole f-stop worth of light?.

Get a UV filter....

Dave..

I use a polarizer filter on all of my lenses. I do own creative filters, but I have not used any of them yet. Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

A polarizer would make the most sense, it helps saturate your colors by reducing the reflections and boosts the color of your skies. As far as lens protection goes, the choice is your as to whether to use a hod or a clear filter such as a UV or Skylight. some are in the camp of it is necessary to have a filter at all ties, others say any extra glass degrades your image and the hood is more than sufficient. I suppose that argument depends on how careful you handle your equipment and whether or not you shoot in harsh environments......but the polarizer would be the ideal addition for landscapes and macro close ups..

But, you also loose two stops of light with a polarizer so some kind of camera support wil most likely be needed as well. If you do not want to haul around a full sized tripod, Bogen makes a nice table top model..

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

Chato wrote:.

Your lens cost plenty bucks! You should always have some sort offilter on the end to protect the glass from scratches. Murphys lawapplies here, and a cheap UV filter will protect an expensive pieceof glass..

Protect it from what? A cheap UV filter will do nothing to protect a lens and will frequently add an extra element to the lens. Unless you are in conditions where the there is abrasive dust flying or salt water spray. a UV filter will do nothing but degrade the image from your expensive lens..

As has been mentioned you don't NEED these filters (with the fewnamed exceptions) for photographic purposes. But I have lenses thatcost a thousand and up, and a cheap filter is a cheap investement..

A cheap filter is a sure way to degrade your image. If you really must put another piece of glass in front of those already too numerous elements, then invest in a good, clear glass filter..

Brian A...

Chato wrote:.

Get a UV filter....

Why oh why would you want to do that?.

Have you seen the comparisons of naked lenses vs cheap UV filters? A plain glass, multicoated is almost always perferable..

Especially on a digital camera, a flat filter will often reflect light onto the sensor. Unless you have some overarching need for a filter, they are best avoided. Use a lens hood, it's a better way..

Brian A...

John Glover wrote:.

A polarizer would make the most sense, it helps saturate your colorsby reducing the reflections and boosts the color of your skies. Asfar as lens protection goes, the choice is your as to whether to usea hod or a clear filter such as a UV or Skylight. some are in thecamp of it is necessary to have a filter at all ties, others say anyextra glass degrades your image and the hood is more than sufficient.I suppose that argument depends on how careful you handle yourequipment and whether or not you shoot in harsh environments......butthe polarizer would be the ideal addition for landscapes and macroclose ups..

But, you also loose two stops of light with a polarizer so some kindof camera support wil most likely be needed as well. If you do notwant to haul around a full sized tripod, Bogen makes a nice table topmodel..

It sounds like it's a POL filter I should get then  Thanks ..

Raner wrote:.

From what I understand, regular (i.e. non-circular) polarizers willnot work with most DSLRs because they interfere with the lightmetering and auto-focusing. So, you should probably buy a circularpolarizer..

Polarizers do have a different effect based on their rotation. Forexample, if your scene has different reflecting surfaces at varyingangles, you need to find the optimal rotation of the polarizer tocancel out reflections on a particular surface..

The polarizers minimum and maximum effects are separated by a90-degree turn. So, if your polarizer is rotated so that is cancelsout reflections optimally while you are in "landscape" mode it willshow it's minimum effect when you rotate the camera to "portrait"mode. So, yes, the orientation of the camera does have an effect..

Also, I hear, that polarizers are problematic on lenses with arotating front element, for very much the same reason..

Hmm... so in reality one has to re-fit the filter everytime you go from landscape to portrait? Even with a circular?..

Hugowolf wrote:.

Chato wrote:.

Get a UV filter....

Why oh why would you want to do that?.

Have you seen the comparisons of naked lenses vs cheap UV filters? Aplain glass, multicoated is almost always perferable..

Especially on a digital camera, a flat filter will often reflectlight onto the sensor. Unless you have some overarching need for afilter, they are best avoided. Use a lens hood, it's a better way..

Brian A..

I have never been able to see any difference in the images with or without my HOYA UV HMC filter (Nikon D40 + 18-55). But maybe it's just me ..

TimBrandt wrote:.

Hmm... so in reality one has to re-fit the filter everytime you gofrom landscape to portrait? Even with a circular?.

Not really, you will just have to give the polarizer an extra 90 degrees of rotation to maintain the same effect. There is no need to remove and re-fit the filter..

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

TimBrandt wrote:.

I have never been able to see any difference in the images with orwithout my HOYA UV HMC filter (Nikon D40 + 18-55). But maybe it'sjust me .

Nor have I but also keep in mind you have a multicoated filter. I believe the OP was speaking about cheap non-coated, window glass types of UV filters. in that case you most likely would see some effects. About the most you'll see with a Hoya HMC is a loss of about a 1/4 stop of light or so..

Some filters like Crystal Optics, Opteka, etc., are truly horrible......  .

JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

Hugowolf wrote:.

Chato wrote:.

Your lens cost plenty bucks! You should always have some sort offilter on the end to protect the glass from scratches. Murphys lawapplies here, and a cheap UV filter will protect an expensive pieceof glass..

Protect it from what? A cheap UV filter will do nothing to protect alens and will frequently add an extra element to the lens. Unless youare in conditions where the there is abrasive dust flying or saltwater spray. a UV filter will do nothing but degrade the image fromyour expensive lens..

Clearly you're right. What good would a thin piece of glass have? None of course. I've never met anyone in my entire life who planned on scratching their lens. Case closed..

Dave..

John Glover wrote:.

(snip).

Asfar as lens protection goes, the choice is your as to whether to usea hod or a clear filter such as a UV or Skylight. some are in thecamp of it is necessary to have a filter at all ties, others say anyextra glass degrades your image and the hood is more than sufficient..

No, there are those who preserve their lenses and purchase a good filter to protect the lens, Knowing that a good filter leads to NO perceptable degradation of the image and those who don't know this..

Certainly one should Not save money on these filters - then indeed you will get degradation..

I suppose that argument depends on how careful you handle yourequipment and whether or not you shoot in harsh environments......butthe polarizer would be the ideal addition for landscapes and macroclose ups..

A polarizer is great if you can afford the loss of light. As for your equipment, no one has ever planed to damage their lens. Murphys law applies here..

Dave..

John Glover wrote:.

TimBrandt wrote:.

I have never been able to see any difference in the images with orwithout my HOYA UV HMC filter (Nikon D40 + 18-55). But maybe it'sjust me .

Nor have I but also keep in mind you have a multicoated filter. Ibelieve the OP was speaking about cheap non-coated, window glasstypes of UV filters. in that case you most likely would see someeffects. About the most you'll see with a Hoya HMC is a loss ofabout a 1/4 stop of light or so..

Some filters like Crystal Optics, Opteka, etc., are trulyhorrible......  .

Don't save money on your filter. Then indeed you will get degradation. Perhaps that has been the experience of some, who cannot believe that different manufacturers actually do have different quality in a singel sheet of glass. But even an expensive filter is cheap compared to the cost of any decent lens..

A good UV filter will not cost signifigant light loss, about a tenth of an f stop..

Dave..

John Glover wrote:.

Not really, you will just have to give the polarizer an extra 90degrees of rotation to maintain the same effect. There is no need toremove and re-fit the filter..

So that's something you can do with all POL-filters? Rotate it without removing it?..

John Glover wrote:.

Nor have I but also keep in mind you have a multicoated filter. Ibelieve the OP was speaking about cheap non-coated, window glasstypes of UV filters. in that case you most likely would see someeffects. About the most you'll see with a Hoya HMC is a loss ofabout a 1/4 stop of light or so..

Some filters like Crystal Optics, Opteka, etc., are trulyhorrible......  .

That's also why I figured i'd rather spend a little more and get a Hoya HMC. And it's still pretty cheap...