Introduction to Filters for DSLRs
What filters should I buy for my DSLR lenses?
The ‘filter’ question is another of the common ones that I’m asked these days (along side the ‘which lens should I buy’ question. It’s a slightly tricky question because the answer will depend upon the type of photography that you do, the type of lenses that you have, your budget and your ability with and willingness to use a post production software tool like photoshop to get similar effects to those that the filters can give you.
I personally only use two types of filters - UV filters and Polarizing filters. However I know photographers who make strong cases for ND grad filters and neutral density filters also. Let’s briefly explore each and talk about why you might consider them.
Polarizing Filters
I’ve written a more extensive guide to Polarizing Filters previously so won’t completely rehash it here. Polarizing filters change the way that your camera sees and treats light. Particularly - when using one you’ll notice a change in how your camera sees reflections, glare and even some colors. Polarizing Filters can give you deep blue skies, help get rid of reflections on glass or water etc.
As a result they’re a great filter for landscape photographers or anyone shooting outdoors (I always take one when traveling). I have one for each of my walk-about type lenses (my 24-105mm and EF 17-40mm) but don’t have one for my telephoto lenses which I use more for sports.
UV Filters
The main reason that I buy UV filters the for all of my lenses is protection of the lenses. Lenses are not cheap and the thought of scratching or cracking the front glass element is enough to send shivers down most photographers backs. I’d rather have to replace a $50 filter than a $1500 lens any day. UV filters are also great at keeping salt spray, dust and grime off the front of your lens.
Those still using film cameras will find UV filters handy also for cutting back the ultraviolet light. However most digital cameras have the ability to cut down UV and Infrared light.
Just be aware when buying a UV filter (or an alternative for protection might be a skylight filter) that the quality varies. I tend to buy higher end professional filters for my higher end lenses.
ND Graduated Filters
If you’ve ever shot a landscape image with impressive cloud formations in it and have gotten the image home to your computer to be disappointed in how the sky has blown out and lost it’s detail through overexposure (while the rest of the shot is fine) you’ll be a candidate for a ND Grad filter.
These ’slot in’ filters look like a two tone filter in that the top half will look a little like sunglasses and the bottom half will look clear. The top half decreases the amount of light being let in (usually by 1, 2 or 3 ’stops’) while the bottom half lets the darker part of your scene to be exposed normally.
You usually can buy these filters in a set of three (at different stop levels) and can get the the ‘graduation’ between the two parts of the filter either as ’soft’ (the graduation is gentler) or ‘hard’ (where the graduation is more sudden).
Lastly - ND Graduation Filters are a ’slot in’ filter and you need to buy an attachment to put on the end of your lens that holds them in place.
As I’ve said above - I don’t use ND Grad filters - but they will be something to consider for landscape photographers.
Neutral Density Filters
I have had very little experience with Neutral Density lenses but do have one friend who swears by them. He shoots a lot in his beautiful garden and his goal is to get a well exposed flower with a nice blurry background. As a result he has to shoot at very large Apertures (to get the blur). The problem he faces is that on a bright sunny day this can lead to over exposed shots.
The solution is a Neutral Density Filter which cuts down the light getting into your camera. You can buy them at different levels (ie 1 stop, 2 stops, 3 stops etc).
This type of filter is useful in any setting where you want to use larger Apertures and/or slow shutter speeds in bright conditions.
One work-around that you might try in an emergency is to simply use a polarizing filter in such conditions as they also cut out light getting into your lens in a similar way. Keep in mind though that they also could impact other aspects of the shot (reflections, color etc).
What filters do you use (if any)? What advice would you give DSLR owners looking at purchasing filters?
Read more posts like 'Introduction to Filters for DSLRs'
Digital Photography School is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!
June 26th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Perfect timing. I was just about to check the forums on this topic.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:35 am
First of all, I don’t have an SLR, but my camera (Olympus C8080) can take filters. That said, I have a UV filter on at all times (to protect the lens) and I also have both a polarizer and a Color-Grad Neutral Density (0.6) filter (i.e. half neutral density, half clear). My ND filter screws on to my lens so I don’t need an attachment. I find the split ND filter to be really useful for sunrises and sunsets when one half of the frame has significantly more light than the other. Thanks for the article…it reminds me to get out and actually use my filters more often!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I’ve heard some photographers use a 77 mm polarizer so they can use it on all their lenses with a step up ring. That way they only have to buy one and can save money. So if you are buying one that is something to think about.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:51 am
What I’d love to know is at what focal length do you start buying the low profile filters? I went with the recommendation from B&H and got one with the 17-85mm kit lense on my 20D, but as I look at moving on from that lens, I’m at a loss.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:54 am
i have the same feeling about filters as you:
uv - have one on every lens
cp - have one for every lens
nd - have one for my walkabout lens
graeme ::: the one thing that you have to think about when using the step down rings is that it’s quite cumbersome (and sometimes impossible) to use them if you’re using a lens hood and/or a wide angle lens. but i did use a step down ring for a bit. i just got tired of how much of a pain it was to use it.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Thanks for the explanation, really appreciate the refresher, I forgot about the filters. Then again I should start taking more pictures too.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:26 am
thanks teewinot. I was under the impression that non-DSLR camera cannot take in filters. Will look into filters for my camera!
June 26th, 2007 at 2:49 am
I have UV filters for both my lenses as a given. I’d be really hesitant to go out shooting without them.
I just recently purchased my first polarizer, a Hoya 58mm. I got the 58mm so that I could use it on both lenses; I just have to use a 52-58 step up ring on one of the lenses.
I’m not sure about a 72mm, as Graeme suggested, but I just saved myself $60 by going with the 58mm and a step up ring.
So far, I’ve really been enjoying it. I’ve been having a great time taking photos with the sky prominent in the background. It makes a big difference. I haven’t taken many photos of water to make the reflection-neutralizing aspect worthwhile, so I can’t really offer an opinion on that just yet.
And I have at least once already used the trick of putting on my polarizer to sub for a neutral density filter and cut excessive brightness.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Just a note that as long as you’re not completely blown out, you can do a much better job of correcting contrast in a landscape in digital post-processing than you could with a graduated filter. UV, ND, and polarizing are still pretty useful for digital photography, though…
And yes, most of the “ZLR” non-SLR large-lens digitals (like my Lumix FZ20 and its successors) take filters.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:07 am
who here that uses UV filters to protect their lens has ever actually damaged their UV filter and saved their lens from a scratch or a ding?
i’m willing to guess very few if any. so why introduce a low quality (most people aren’t willing to shill out big bucks for a transparent piece of glass that does nothing) piece of glass that only serves to degrade the quality of your lens?
use a hood and be mindful of what you’re doing and you’ll be fine.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:11 am
I’ve started a Thread for forum-members to post their best examples of how these filters can be used…
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?p=29400#post29400
If you have shots taken that exemplify the filter put them here and hopefully people who read this threat will get to learn (plus you’ll get people to see your photos!)
June 26th, 2007 at 3:27 am
I use polarisers and UV filters.
For landscape definitely need one(polariser) for those sexy deep blue skies, and I’ve yet to try neutral density filters, get those nice silk smooth waters.
UV filters, just bought one for the protective nature of it. I’ve heard that buying a cheap UV-filter can degrade the photo quality, but too sure on that.
Reply to Ian’s comment: I think I remember reading a story on dpreview.com about some guy, dropped his canon 70-200 f2.8 IS on the floor, front element first, but lucky he had the UV-filter on it. It ended up cracking the UV-filter, and I’m pretty sure the lens wasn’t damaged.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:56 am
That’s a good summary of essential filters for DSLRs. Don’t forget that lots of filters were originally to do (on a film camera) what you can now do post-production in Photoshop, so the ones listed above are all I’ve ever bought.
Neutral density (ND) filters can also be used to get some really nice effects by shooting long exposures of moving subjects during daylight, especially if you buy a very dark one. Check out the ND Filters group on Flickr for some inspiration:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/neutraldensity/
June 26th, 2007 at 5:57 am
@george. i’ve got that lens, and the hood for it is huge. not that i’d do it, but if i were to drop it front element first.. i’m sure that the hood would take the hit.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Anyone who has been shooting for a while could tell you about UV filters saving their lenses. Sure, it has the potential to affect image quality, especially if using a cheesy plastic one, and it can introduce more flaring too, but…
Just take a look at your UV filter a year from now, or two, or three… Chances are the thing will be scratched and blurred to all get out. I have personally saved myself on numerous occasions (it isn’t that hard to scrape the lens cap across the lens or do something much worse by accident), and if you’ve got any L-series glass (or similar), why would you risk a $1,500+ lens when you can protect it for less than $50 without much downside?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:09 am
I haven’t noticed any degrade in quality with UV filters. Just as long as you keep them clean and dust free, it shouldn’t affect the image as much. The only problem with UV filters is that sometimes, depending on your angle, you get ghost reflections of the light source when capturing lights at night time(eg. Christmas lights).
June 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Is it possible to use more then one screw on filter? Do most filters have threads on both ends? If you want to mix filters is that when you use the drop in ones?
Topslakr
June 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am
It’s also worth pointing out that the filtering “systems” from Cokin and Lee are fantastic - I much prefer them over the screw-in variety.
They are a little more pricey up-front but, given that you can use the same filters on all lenses (with just a cheap lens adapter for each lens) and use up to three filters at once with no vignetting, the benefits outweigh the cost IMHO.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Topslakr,
Good question. I have 3 ’screw-on’ filters for my lens (UV, polarizer, grad ND) and they can all screw into each other…however, when I do this the corners of the frame have a vignette (at least at 28mm…not sure if this happens at all focal lengths or not). The filters end up creating a longer tube that is visible by the lens (using one filter is no problem of course…using two is when I start to see black in the corners). I’m sure it varies a lot depending on the camera, lens, and filter. I have no experience with drop-in filters…that may be the solution to this problem. Hope this helps.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for the article! Great stuff as always!
One suggestion for the articles in future: Perhaps more sample photos can be take to support the explanation?
In this article for example, a photo with and without the filter will help newbies like me understand the effects more clearly.
:) Cheers!
June 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I always use a UV filter for protection and although I’ve never damaged it you cvan bet your life the day I don’t have one I will damage my lens. It’s like insurance it’s rarely used, (how else would insurance companys make money on it) but the one time you don’t take it out something happens and you’re stuffed.
I have also recently shelled out on a polarizing filter and am experimenting with it. Sometimes it’s great othertimes there’s not effect. Still getting to grips with when to and when not to use it. I’ll check out the other article you posted.
That’s all I use
June 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
till now i was taking photographs without any filter except the all time UV (more to protect the lens) to slow down the effect of uv rays. now in my kit i want to add a polariser and a ND filter. otherwise many effects are already given in the camera itself and besides the photoshop is already there. there are many benefits after the introduction of DCs to the photographers. one more filter i would add is the cross screen filter for fireworks and night photography.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Great article, but yes.. please provide before and after pics for the noobies (me).
June 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
You say you don’t use a polarizer for sports. Why?
I recently shot an outdoor lacrosse tournament on grass in bright sun and used one on my 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x for the first time. Was happy with the shorter focal lengths, but very disappointed in the sharpness at full zoom. Used monopod.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I have to admit I had to do a lot of searching about filters around the net, so this is definitely very helpful!
June 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
PFJ - I’m sure a polarizer could be useful for sports, particularly outdoors if it’s sunny and you want to get a nice blue sky or it’s a water sport and you’re trying to cut down glare from water.
The down side of them is that they let less light in by a stop or two which can be a problem if you’re shooting fast moving subjects and need to shoot at high shutter speeds.
Keep in mind also that the 1.4 extender means you lose a stop of aperture also so your f/2.8 becomes f/4 - then if you have the polarizer you’re letting even less light in.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Hi,
i use a panasonic FZ-50 Prosumer seg camera and has a UV filter attached… I would like to Know a couple of things
1) will attaching the UV filter affect indoor shoots/lowlight shots???
2) do i need to removethe filters and keep when i’m not using the camera/travelling.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Hi,
I have a doubt. Are the Neutral Grad and Neutral density filters introdced after taking the meter reading for exposure?.
The Neutral grad filter being a slot type must surely be positioned after setting the focus so that it does not move from its position.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
June 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I use polarisers very frequently. For architectural shots I have found they help reduce overexposure of light coloured stonework, as well as getting better depth of sky behind the subject. For landscape, polarising filters are absolutely vital. I find they also cut down haze.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 pm
This is a useful article; Thank you.
I always use UV filter. Now I am planning to buy a polarizer filter and an Infrared filter. I have seen very amazing pictures taken with infrared filters. I searched the DPS for any article about Infrared photography but found nothing. I really appreciate an article about Infrared photography.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I have used my filters to protect my lens - in fact on a recent trip to Malta, one of my filters was smashed into a million pieces, but my lens was fine!
Nice article!
July 4th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Great info. How does a circular polarizer work of differ from a standard one? I bought one and it has an arrow. Should the arrow point up?
July 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Nice article. Being on a budding part-time photographer, I am finding myself taking more and more shots for clients here in Perth. They usually end up on business cards, brochues, postcards or marketing cards so getting the light right is quite hard when you do not have all the studio equipment on hand to complement our need. I tend to take the majority of the photos outdoors which always help and have a UV and Polarised filter on hand is always a great and inexpensive bonus - not to mention the protection it give the lens in the event of dust and grit flying around.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I always keep a UV on all my lenses. My Oly 8080 in my shouler camera bag when it was knocked off my shoulder. It was only a temporary cheap bag & the filter completely shattered but no damage to the lens or the camera mechanisms. The edge of the filter ring was bent & would not unscrew so ended up cutting it off.
The filter was replaced as soon as possible
July 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Thank you for the brief overveiw. I have a consideration, though. Concerning the neutral density filters to be used for photographing flowers with a blurry background, it is stated that ND filters are needed to avoid blown-out images at large apertures.
Is this correct? Accordnign to my understanding, shooting at maximum aperture will alos give you the fastest shutter speed, and therefore the least risk of over exposure.
I would use the ND filter, (when i eventually buy one someday), to photograph eg running water, where the slower shutter speed would make the watersurface look calmer.
But not for flowers.
Is my understanding correct, or have I missed something?
July 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Thanks, this is very helpful. I received three filters with my camera and I had no idea what to do with them.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Well, you do need a polarizer, period. I do not use UV filters. My best protection for the past 40 years has been the lens cap.
I do recommend a graduated neutral density filter. I use the 2 and 3 stops often.
A neutral density filter is useful and I would go with a 4 stops one. Your polarizer is a very effective neutral density filter if you only need 2 stops. I use it like that all the time.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:26 am
I thought the protection of the lens was hooey until I dropped a lens. It landed on the edge of the UV filter instead of the lens and cracked the UV filter quite nicely! No damage to the lens, thank goodness.
If for no other reason I am a believer in putting a UV filter on every lens.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:09 am
@Tip Weiss: a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a quarter-wave plate (QWP) added. The QWP shifts linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light. Check out http://dpfwiw.com/polarizer.htm for more than you ever wanted to know.
The important thing to know is that cameras with auto-focus and metering sensors behind the lens need circular polarizers or else you’ll have trouble with autofocus and autoexposure.
The arrow indicates the direction of polarization. It should be oriented 90° from the source of light (e.g., the sun). I find it’s easiest to just rotate it while looking through the viewfinder (non-SLRs can see the effect on the viewscreen, although it might lag a little, so turn the polarizer slowly) and stop at the point where the effect is greatest.
You’ll usually see the sky darken, reflections fade, contrast increase, etc. at a certain point as you rotate. Like tuning an analog radio, keep turning until you see the effect reach its greatest and then start to recede, then turn back a tad.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
i use a variety of sunglass lenses over the camera lens.
cheap sunglasses.
this trick is much better than nothing, and as well dumbstrikes slack-jawed bystanders, and stokes the envy of fellow shutterbugs who spent real money.