what filter should i get?


weixuan

New Member
Apr 10, 2013
8
0
0
Sinagpore
#1
I am a newbie photographer and would like to try long exposure shots. what type of filter should I get? nd grad, nd, or polarizer. I use the 18-55 mm kit lens which will rotate the barrel during autofocus. please help me.
 

undergrd

Senior Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,984
7
38
North-East
#2
Get a 10 stop ND filter. You can choose either the rectangular or the screw-in type.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,516
30
48
Pasir Ris
#3
I strongly suggest not buying anything but reading the existing extensive threads about filters. Your question reveals that you need knowledge first :)
The sticky thread here in Newbies Corner:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/newbies-corner/803029-newbie-guide-filters.html
Please take your time to read it and all the other available information. Do some homework, show some initiative. It helps more than just copying what others tell you.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#4
Read the sticky first, then you can also read the previous 50 threads that are identical to yours.

Search before posting please. :)
 

joe

New Member
Feb 23, 2003
1,462
0
0
45
singapore
Visit site
#5
First of all,do you need get them cos I find it kind of waste money getting filters Unless you're geting UV filters
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,516
30
48
Pasir Ris
#6
First of all,do you need get them cos I find it kind of waste money getting filters Unless you're geting UV filters
Did you mix up something ..?
Getting UV filters is waste of money, there's hardly any UV leaving the lens to the sensor due to the coating of lens elements. Usually newbies will get lured into buying them by eager sales men, telling all kinds of horror stories about damaged front elements. To each his own, but for photography with digital cameras it's pointless to use one.
On the other hand, GDN and CPL are quite useful and for long exposure shots the ND filters are mandatory. These filters and their effects cannot be simulated later in post-processing. (Maybe GND, with limitations).
 

Last edited:

eleveninth

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,218
2
38
#7
First of all,do you need get them cos I find it kind of waste money getting filters Unless you're geting UV filters
lol? not the other way around?
 

overcrash

New Member
Jan 30, 2002
483
0
0
36
Hougang
www.samuelgoh.net
#8
I beg to differ.
The very first filter that go onto each and every of my lens is a UV filter.

I am very sure any one of us yes would rather have our UV filter scratched, than the glass element of the lens scratched.
One can argued that with really really good care, you would not need UV filter.
I agreed but i rather buy insurance.


Did you mix up something ..?
Getting UV filters is waste of money, there's hardly any UV leaving the lens to the sensor due to the coating of lens elements. Usually newbies will get lured into buying them by eager sales men, telling all kinds of horror stories about damaged front elements. To each his own, but for photography with digital cameras it's pointless to use one.
On the other hand, GDN and CPL are quite useful and for long exposure shots the ND filters are mandatory. These filters and their effects cannot be simulated later in post-processing. (Maybe GND, with limitations).
 

eleveninth

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,218
2
38
#9
I beg to differ.
The very first filter that go onto each and every of my lens is a UV filter.

I am very sure any one of us yes would rather have our UV filter scratched, than the glass element of the lens scratched.
One can argued that with really really good care, you would not need UV filter.
I agreed but i rather buy insurance.
i believe they are talking in terms of effects such as being able to do a long exposure etc??
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
I am a newbie photographer and would like to try long exposure shots. what type of filter should I get? nd grad, nd, or polarizer. I use the 18-55 mm kit lens which will rotate the barrel during autofocus. please help me.

you can rotate the polarizing filter after you have done with your focusing, anyway, even you lens front element don't rotate while focusing, you will be doing the same too, rotate the polarizing filter after you have done with your focusing.

so not a big deal of using polarizing filter with lens front element do rotate while focusing.
 

kklee

New Member
Aug 13, 2004
403
1
0
#13
Yes and you'll note that lens ALREADY has a "Vitacon" UV filter. ;)

Also, do note that we need to be specific about UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, etc...
Yes for ?
Yeah, someone said how horrible products VITACON are. I needed something to support the torch, so I use this piece of glass.
I am try hard not to go into the specifics less I cause what I seem to be a not-so-pleasant experience for someone who told me to talk about photography only. ;)
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#14
Actually, lenses still let UV light through... it is the modern digital sensor that doesn't get affected much..
 

kklee

New Member
Aug 13, 2004
403
1
0
#15
Actually, lenses still let UV light through... it is the modern digital sensor that doesn't get affected much..
UV conversion for Dslr does exist. I would think that digital sensors are UV sensitive. It may be the 'filters' just right in front that blocks certain spectrum.

I refer to a statement in the Newbie Guide to Filter - However modern digital sensors are not affected by UV light.
In the right perception, it may be correct as this may apply to IR as well.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#16
UV conversion for Dslr does exist. I would think that digital sensors are UV sensitive. It may be the 'filters' just right in front that blocks certain spectrum.

I refer to a statement in the Newbie Guide to Filter - However modern digital sensors are not affected by UV light.
In the right perception, it may be correct as this may apply to IR as well.
Yes, it is mostly the UV cut properties of the glass panel(s) above the sensor. But for the sake of newbies, we usually refer to the entire sensor assembly as "the sensor". UV light affect image quality is also less of a concern because UV is often captured as blue on a sensor, and digital sensors are relatively a lot weaker at the blue end of the light spectrum.

Also, on a conventional DSLR with conventional lens, most of the UV wavelengths up to around 310nm will already be greatly reduced by optical glass in the lens. a UV filter will be able to further reduce wavelengths from 310-380nm

One also need to be clear of what kind of UV photography we are talking about. Most common is actually UV-Florescence which begins with a UV excitation source that stimulates the flourescence of a material. This means that light is re-emitted at a longer wavelength after being stimulated by UV light. This kind of UV photography does not require special equipment, but some camera models with a wider wavelength response will work better (usually 380nm and above). Do note that due to the longer wavelength, most of the light captured is actually close to or in the visual spectrum.

For reflected UV photography, there are specialized lenses used (like quartz or calcium flouride based optical elements), or long exposures in darkness are needed, apart from modifying the sensor's filters. But Reflected UV photography is mostly used in commercial or research purpose. And they usually have specialized equipment for it.
 

Last edited:

kklee

New Member
Aug 13, 2004
403
1
0
#17
Yes, it is mostly the UV cut properties of the glass panel(s) above the sensor. But for the sake of newbies, we usually refer to the entire sensor assembly as "the sensor". UV light affect image quality is also less of a concern because UV is often captured as blue on a sensor, and digital sensors are relatively a lot weaker at the blue end of the light spectrum.

Also, on a conventional DSLR with conventional lens, most of the UV wavelengths up to around 310nm will already be greatly reduced by optical glass in the lens. a UV filter will be able to further reduce wavelengths from 310-380nm

One also need to be clear of what kind of UV photography we are talking about. Most common is actually UV-Florescence which begins with a UV excitation source that stimulates the flourescence of a material. This means that light is re-emitted at a longer wavelength after being stimulated by UV light. This kind of UV photography does not require special equipment, but some camera models with a wider wavelength response will work better (usually 380nm and above). Do note that due to the longer wavelength, most of the light captured is actually close to or in the visual spectrum.

For reflected UV photography, there are specialized lenses used (like quartz or calcium flouride based optical elements), or long exposures in darkness are needed, apart from modifying the sensor's filters. But Reflected UV photography is mostly used in commercial or research purpose. And they usually have specialized equipment for it.
Yeah, means I read that correctly.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#18
Yeah, means I read that correctly.
Yup. But that also means that what Octarine said is also correct. That most UV light is actually reduced mostly by optical glass of a lens. Just that spectrum between 400nm to 310nm is let through. And the rest are mostly blocked by the sensor assembly. only a small range like 380-400nm is left to pass through and is negligible.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,516
30
48
Pasir Ris
#19
Is your source of UV in any way comparable to the sun in terms of intensity?
Is your setup somewhat reflecting real life conditions, taking also into account the sensor and it's filters and characteristics?
Are you using a recent lens?
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,516
30
48
Pasir Ris
#20
I beg to differ.
The very first filter that go onto each and every of my lens is a UV filter.
I am very sure any one of us yes would rather have our UV filter scratched, than the glass element of the lens scratched.
One can argued that with really really good care, you would not need UV filter.
I agreed but i rather buy insurance.
I will not stop you from doing this. Do what makes you feel happy and protected.
But the feeling might be deceiving and in the end you might end up in a worse situation. One situation that I encountered shall illustrate:
I slipped with my camera in right hand, caught myself with right elbow and hand and the camera was fine. However, the rim of the lens knocked on the stones. Now, what would happen to your protective filter and the lens filter thread? No protection at all, the energy will be forwarded to filter and lens filter thread without delay, cause deformation, maybe glass cracking and other things. (There are several threads here where people ask for help to remove [cracked] filters after such incidents.) Luckily, I had a lens hood with bayonet mount. It caught the blow, the energy of the impact got spread out. The lens hood has some marks now, the lens itself works fine and the front element is clean.
Decide for yourself what is more likely to happen: something that hits your lens straight on and need to be caught by some filter, or a knock from the side to the lens rim?
 

Top Bottom