Related Local Links:
Beat This! High Prices for Photogear
(center filters over $2,800 apiece!)
Filters FAQ Pages
Homebrew Center Filter Tips
Large Filter Systems Available | |
---|---|
Cokin A | to 67mm (A for amateur) |
Cokin P | to 84mm (P for professional) |
Cokin X-pro | 170mm x 130mm (A for amateur) |
Cromatek | 75mm and 100mm |
Jessops (U.K.) | 67mm and 84mm |
HiTech | 75mm, 85mm, 94mm, 100mm resin |
HiTech | 75mm and 100mm ultra-thin Optiflex |
Lee | 100mm resin |
Lee | 75mm, 100mm, 150mm polyester |
P&L | 67mm, 76mm, 84mm, 100mm, 125mm |
Pro-4 | 67mm |
SRB | 67mm and 84mm |
Kodak Wratten | 75mm and 100mm (3"/4") |
The big filter problem seems to be getting more common as zoom lenses and
ultrawide angle lenses push the size of filters past the usual 72mm or
even 77mm limits encountered in typical amateur usage. The cost of larger
filters is also geometrically larger than their smaller brethren, even
when you factor in the larger area. This is a case where you buy a filter
with twice the area, but pay four or five or more times as much for
it!
Many of these filters are available from various filter makers such as B+W
and Heliopan as custom ordered filters. So the good news is that you can
get many of the standard filters you want. The bad news is that the cost
of custom filters in larger filter sizes may exceed the cost of some of
the lenses you will want to use them on! This economic reality is a
result of low filter demand and the high costs of high quality custom
filter manufacture.
Now if you ask me what filters I really need and use, I would have
to say the polarizing filter, a warming filter (#81A or #81b or #812
Tiffen), and a neutral grad filter for landscapes. Now and again, I also
use
cross-filters, closeup diopters, colored filters (especially orange and
red for sunsets), and some soft effects filters for portraits. Most of the
odd-ball multi-image prism filters, color correction (including
fluorescent to daylight), diffraction gratings, and multicolor filters are
rarely used. Since our campus closed its open access darkrooms, I haven't
done much B+W work, though I have a number of filters for such work
(green..).
Now comes the hard part. Identify which filters you really, really
need. Do you really think you need a clear
UV filter? Do you scratch up your lenses often? Do your regular
filters have lots of scratches on them from use and abuse? Unless you are
shooting in sandy or muddy types of environments where your lenses could
get scratched by blowing grit and sand, you may not really need a
UV filter.
UV filters are often pushed as the highest markup items in most
photostores. But better protection may be much cheaper in the large lens
sizes by the use of a lens hood and lens cap protector of plastic or
metal. Unlike their glass counterparts, a very large metal or plastic lens
protector will only cost a few dollars more than the typical 52 or 58mm
varieties. If you are worried about your lens, insure it. Insurance may be cheaper and cover a
lot more problems than some of those big UV filters I see folks buying.
How about a polarizer? Do you really need it? I used to think I
really needed a polarizer for my ultrawide lenses. Then I discovered I
didn't like the excessive darkening in one part of the sky that resulted.
Polarizers are maximally effective 90 degrees away from the sun. If you
have an ultrawide lens that covers circa 90 degrees or more, you may find
that you don't need a polarizer all the time either.
How about one of those great color enhancing filters to really bring out
those autumn leaf colors? Sounds great, until you price them in 82mm and
above sizes (if available at all). A better option may be to explore some
of the newer color intensifying films now available. While the effects may
be subtly different, you can get a wide range of color intensification
effects and color biases rather more cheaply using different types of film. Many of us have noted how
Kodachrome 25 really responds to reds, while the older Fuji films had a
way with greens too. For many needs, you can also process the images
digitally to intensify colors after the fact.
I recently picked up a Bowens Illumitran slide duplicating setup so I
could duplicate slides, make backups, create slide "sandwiches" from
multiple images, and control coloration and other factors. Zoom and
regular slide duplicators are also available, often at modest prices as
slides are now less popular with amateur users. Using these systems, you
can do after-the-shot slide color changes, as if you had filtered many
shots using various color filters. While less handy than a 122mm yellow
colored filter, you can have more control over coloration using a slide
duplicator setup. While this isn't for everyone, you can arrange for some
kinds of filter effects to be applied during color or black and white
printing, even if you don't do your own darkroom work. For rarely used
colored filters, this approach can be useful. You can also put some of
that down-time between field trips to productive use exploring and
creating new images from your stock photo files.
My point here has been that you should be able to greatly reduce the
number of filters you really need in the larger sizes by
considering which filters you actually use.
At the other end of the scale, a Linhof filter holder is $595 US, and many
quality filter lines start at $100 US and up. The 136mm screw-thread
center filter for the 210mm f/8 super angulon runs about $2,850.00 (list).
Surprise! That's one filter you won't find in my filter
collection!
What makes a quality filter cost so much more? The most important factor
is high optical quality. In some cases, this translates into quality brass
mountings, rather than aluminum or other lesser metals. Brass seizes up
much less often, and makes use easier and faster, with less risk of
cross-threading and thread damage.
Other filters are coated, or even
multi-coated, using similar vacuum coating deposition equipment. This
coating reduces reflections from the surface of the filter, which is one
of the quality reducing effects of filters in some bad lighting situations
(e.g., side lighting striking the surface of the filter due to lack of a
proper lens hood). Despite the ads, multi-coating only provides a modest
improvement over single coatings. As with lenses, the big difference
is uncoated versus coated filters, rather than multicoated versus coated
filters. Even so, uncoated filters used carefully, avoiding side lighting
and dirt/grease on the filter, can still produce excellent results. So
don't throw them away even if they aren't multicoated!
A somewhat subtle difference is the degree of flatness of the filter. A
top quality filter should be truly plano-parallel, meaning flat and
parallel to the lens (on each filter face plane). Some manufacturers
achieve this by cutting the filter out of optical glass and flattening it
using an optical lap or other grinding technologies. As with optical
flats, an interference test or other optical test for flatness is used to
ensure that the filters are truly flat and truly parallel (including when
mounted). Other companies simply pour out the filter glass on a slab and
use a roller to press out a flat glass blank from which their filters are
cut ("cookie cutter" fashion per their pricier competitor's ads).
Fortunately, many millions of pressed filters are quite flat enough for
photographic work and are so used every day for taking zillions of
pictures. Lots of us use Hoya filters (and others Tiffen brand) every day,
as one brand example. Lots of OEM filters (Hasselblad, Rollei, Bronica)
are actually made by another corporation specializing in filters,
including other OEMs. For example, I have a Zenza Bronica filter for
my classic Bronica S2a that was actually made by Pentax (Asahi Corp.),
another OEM. This is one reason that you will rarely see Japanese
corporations running down each others products, including filters!
Another side effect of this marketing scheme is that OEM filters made by
somebody else may be cheaper to buy directly than from the OEM who has to
add on their overhead costs and profits. For example, the B+W 95mm
Kasemann circular polarizer is "only" circa $250 US, while the Rollei 95mm
Kasemann circular polarizer is an eye-catching $500 US. Ouch! Conversely,
the Hasselblad and B+W bayonet-60 Kasemann polarizers are both around $225
US, versus $150 for the Heliopan examples, and half of that for either the
Tiffen or Hoya version. So we are talking a 300% range in prices here!
Speaking of quality, filters are made in a number of ways. The best and
most color stable filters are usually the batch dyed glasses, such as
those used in the Kodak series filters. At the other end of the scale, two
pieces of glass are placed on either side of a colored gel or plastic
circle. A potential problem here is that poor sealing of the edges of the
filter will allow moisture to attack the gel layer, causing it to discolor
and swell.
Some filters such as polarizers inherently have such optical
polarizing material at their center. Kasemann filters are just well sealed
and optically guaranteed flat circular polarizers. A circular polarizer is
a regular linear polarizer with a 1/4 wave plate behind it. You get a
polarizer effect in one direction, but not if you flip it around (a test
for a circular polarizer versus linear). Many folks believe they need the
more expensive circular polarizer, but check your camera manual as lots of
electronic cameras work well with the cheaper linear versions (not most AF
cameras, sad to say).
Resin filters vary in quality too. Lee filters are often cited as the best
quality by many pro users, with brands like Singh-Ray often close second
place choices. The Cokin filters are much less costly, but be careful if
you select their "grey" grad NDX filters for use as graduated neutral
density filters for landscape work. Many folks report that their
"grey" has a non-neutral coloration which is undesirable in a
"neutral" filter. Resin filters are easier to scratch, so be careful!
The good news is that series filters are low cost but often high quality
batch-dyed glass filters. Many of my larger series VII, VIII, and IX Kodak
series filters are very good quality, with excellent color and filter
flatness. The main problem with larger series filters is that they are
hard to find, but often cheap when you find them. They also mandate a
rather thick filter setup by the time you have a mounting ring, a filter,
and the outer retaining ring. In practice, this thickness makes them less
useful for some wide angle and especially very wide angle lens work. The
thick series filter mounts simply vignette these wide angle lenses too
badly, and a thinner design has to be used.
But for many lenses, especially telephoto and normal lenses, the series
filters work fine. If you have older budget medium format or large format
cameras and lenses, you may find that such series filters are part of the
camera system and lens design. You will need series filter to standard
filter thread size adapter rings to use other standard threaded filters
(e.g., 52mm) with your series filter threaded lenses (e.g., series VII on
Koni Omega 90mm).
Many camera makers have responded to the complaints of their customers by
providing rear mounting point for standard filters (e.g., 52mm for some
large front diameter Nikon lenses). This trick makes it easy for their
customers to simply use their standard threaded filters (e.g., 52mm) on
the rear of these lenses. Unfortunately, this trick doesn't work so well
with filters like polarizers or neutral gradient filters where you have to
rotate or shift them around when used. But for many filters, the rear
mounting system saves major dollars you will need for making payments on
that big lens.
You can cheat by installing your own rear mounting on many lenses. This
trick works best on telephoto lenses and others where the rear of the lens
is sufficiently distant from the film plane as to avoid vignetting. Here
again, many fisheye and ultra-wide angle lenses may be hard to use with
rear mounted filters without vignetting.
One additional tip is to explore the use of gel filters. Being very thin
(0.5mm up), gel filters will have the lowest mounting height of any
standard filter. Some large format lens makers offer a simple rear filter
mounting accessory for use on lenses. You can make one of these yourself,
and install it on the lens rear. Some systems use velcro mounts, while
others rely on press-fit adapters (often starting with a series filter
press-on adapter).
Finally, you can simply break out the glass from a standard filter and
glue that filter ring at the rear of some lenses (e.g., telephotos). Now
you can simply screw the desired filters into that lens like the similar
commercial rear filter mounts.
You will see a number of "combination" filters now coming to the
market. For example, a warming filter and polarizer combination is quite
popular with long telephoto users. This combination saves space and
weight, and reduces vignetting that two filters stacked together might
cause. Unfortunately, the prices for these dual filters aren't much less
than the price of each filter individually, largely due to low sales
volume I presume. But you can use rear-mounted warming filters instead
with your regular polarizer, at much lower cost than a large warming
filter or combination polarizer-warming filter. If you generally shoot
with the warming filter, you can leave it in place using your rear lens
mount.
Many OEM lens makers argue that they have carefully matched the coloration
of their lenses, so you can shoot slides with different lenses in their
lines without injecting any lens color shading differences in your
shots. Most of us wouldn't notice such subtle color differences. But if
you find one of your lenses has a pronounced color shift, you can fine
tune its coloration with a bit of color correction gel of the appropriate
strength (e.g., CC05R for faint red to warm up a "cold" or bluish
lens). The use of a gel at the rear of the lens is one way to make this
coloration change semi-permanent, without requiring you to stack filters
in front.
You can also use this trick to "warm" up a lens when shooting in
colder (bluish open sky) shade lighting, similar to using a #81B or
stronger warming filter.
Naturally, you can't mimic every filter after the fact (e.g., polarizers),
but you can do a suprising amount of fun experimentation this way. One
recommendation is to always shoot a "straight" or unfiltered shot of the
scene, even when you are convinced all you really want is the filtered
shot. Many times, the unfiltered shot can be used where the filtered shot
is problematic. You can also reshoot the filtered shot after the fact,
varying the amount of filtering as needed with bracketed shots of your
"straight" shot of the scene.
If you have a digital darkroom, you can do much more, including even some
distortion controls and special filter effects using software such as
Photoshop. Again, the utility of a "straight" unfiltered shot is very
high, so be sure to take at least one (and bracketing may be handy too!).
you wrote:
> I've started putting a new system together based on a 503CW and I need some > recommendations on filters. > > First, is there any real advantage of going strickly with bayonet mounted > filters, other than the obvious one of speedier changes, or would using a > Bay 60 to 67mm adapter with B+W filters be just as good? The 67mm B+W > filters are on the average, half the cost of their Bay 60 ones.
I've done it both ways and I prefer 75mm "gel" (optical polyester,
really) made by Lee Filters. (In the US, Calumet Photographic sells
them under the Calumet name.) They are a lot cheaper than glass and
because they are considerably thinner, image degradation is less a
problem. I usually use a Pro Shade to hold them.
> Second, discounting all of the advertising hype, is there any real life > quality differences between B+W and Hasselblad filters?
No. Not any that are really significant.
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
[email protected]
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Need Filter Recommendations
B+W and Heliopan filters are at least as good as, and I suspect in many
cases, better than Hasselblad filters. However, I don't know where
Hasselblad buys their filters. Could be B+W or Heliopan. You can get
multicoated B+W and Heliopan as well as thin versions - which work well on
wide angle lenses.
The Hasselblad 67-B60 & 77-B70 adapters is what I use except for the
polarizers, which are Hasselblad that I got from eBay for half price. All
of my 4x5 LF lenses are 67mm so the adapters allow me to use one set of
filters on both systems. Several of my Leica lenses are 77mm so I get dual
use there as well.
Jim
[Ed. note: Mr. Salomon makes a good point re: you have to use optical
quality polarizing material in any homebrew polarizer!...]
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Cheap polarizing filter?
Yes they can work but they are not photographic quality so they probably
will degrade the image.
There are many different types of polarizing material made by Polaroid
and others but very few are designed to be put on a camera lens.
heliopan, besides selling ones for the lens also sells sheets of
polarizing foils in 2 thickness up to large sheets. But they are for
lighting and are not optically acceptable for lenses.
Wood Grain Vinyl wrote:
> I was wondering if a polarizing filter which was made in the ancient days of > 386 computers to cut glare on a monitor was applicable to being used on a big > format camera as a real polarizing filter? > > Wood Grain.
--
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan,
Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
From ROllei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
There is a nifty gel holder for the back side of LF lenses. I think
maybe it's in the Calumet catalog. I put gels on the back when shooting
LF for two reasons, flare reduction and to keep the wind from blowing
them away!
Bob
....
> I found it interesting that Ansel Adams put his filters at the back of his > lens. > And those zone VI fanatics were into that. > My large format lens is a 210 Fujinon which takes a 67 mm front thread. > Those are filters which i don't have; > but i do have 49's which i got for my 135 3.4 apo Leica M, B+W multicoated. > So I'll screw those on the back of the lens and think I'm doing great. > But perhaps Richard has brought up some issues i should consider. > Ansel I'm pretty sure was using gels which are on no optical consequence. > Although high end B+W filters would probably be OK.... > > Mark Rabiner > Portland, Oregon
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
> From: Marc James Small [email protected] > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 > Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth! > > By 1960, it was contended that > the inner UVa filter was sufficient for all but photography at extremely > high altitudes, say 20,000 ft/6,000m or above.
I've been told by optical designers that the cement used in modern lenses
absorbs practically all of the UV, making UV filters unnecessary except in
extreme situations.
Bob
End of Page