Which ND Filter

What are the problems with the cheaper ND filters? I see on ebay you can pick some up for several quid! I don't want to pay loads because I'm only renting the Tokina 11-16 lens for a week, so it's basically for seascapes and waterfalls, but then again I don't want something that produces problems in colour casting or vignetting ways.

Found a Kenko 77mm Smart ND8 Slim Filter for £12.95, 3 stop, would this be a good buy?

Most cheap filters have color casts, reduce contrast and sharpness and can vignette. Moreover, the glass is often non-toughened and can shatter into thousands of razor sharp shards that can scratch the front element. Toughened glass is not only, well tougher, but if there is a failure it tends to be a few big cracks that cause less issues. Another thing is the mount, good filters typically use brass metal which has a much lower tendency to cross threads, they are also tougher which makes knocks to the filter mount less of an issue. With cheap filters they tend to cross thread more often, and a knock to the mount can make the filter jam on to your lens semi-permanently.

These days there are a few companies buying good quality glass from the likes of Schneider which is the same as what B&W uses. Also polarisers film is now more more common and cheaper since it is used on LCD TVs.







With respect to the filer, why do you want an ND filter? Do you want a 2-3 stop or a 10 stop? They are very different things.


TBH, i would do something nice and fresh like capture sea with waves nice and sharp, not some overly repetitive long exposure blurry seascape. Hence forget the ND filter.


An ND-graduated filter on the other hand could be much more useful.
 
What each person wants to shoot is up to them. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean we can't all do the same if we choose, or not, as the case may be.
 
Thanks for the advice...

I quite like the dramatic looking skies and milky water effects on seascapes, and also would like to try some long, 15-30 second exposures on waterfalls in the middle of the day...

Primarily this is all for Iceland as I'll be going there soon, and I'm renting a Tokina 11-16mm lens to take with my 18-55mm kit lens.

Right now I don't feel the need for a 10 stopper as Iceland will most probably be overcast most of the time and the sun will be low.

For my 18-55 I'm looking at getting a 3 or/and 6 stop Hoya 58mm Pro ND 64 and ND8...

But I don't know if I need both or I could just use one, I guess having both gives me greater flexibility depending on the light and exposure time wanted, but I can't see me needing more than 6 really...

At sunset / dawn I could do longish exposures without the need for the filters I guess.

For the Tokina 11-16 I don't want to really buy more than one ND filter for it as I'll be sending it back after, so I don't know whether to go for a 3 or 6 stop or even 2 stop.
 
Remember a Circular Polarizers gives around 2 stops reduction so the 2 or 3 stop is not so useful

For you do want a long exposures then get 6stop and stack it with your CPL.
 
What each person wants to shoot is up to them. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean we can't all do the same if we choose, or not, as the case may be.

He's just stating his opinion, I'm pretty sure Smr can make his own mind up :P


Thanks for the advice...

I quite like the dramatic looking skies and milky water effects on seascapes, and also would like to try some long, 15-30 second exposures on waterfalls in the middle of the day...

Primarily this is all for Iceland as I'll be going there soon, and I'm renting a Tokina 11-16mm lens to take with my 18-55mm kit lens.

Right now I don't feel the need for a 10 stopper as Iceland will most probably be overcast most of the time and the sun will be low.

For my 18-55 I'm looking at getting a 3 or/and 6 stop Hoya 58mm Pro ND 64 and ND8...

But I don't know if I need both or I could just use one, I guess having both gives me greater flexibility depending on the light and exposure time wanted, but I can't see me needing more than 6 really...

At sunset / dawn I could do longish exposures without the need for the filters I guess.

For the Tokina 11-16 I don't want to really buy more than one ND filter for it as I'll be sending it back after, so I don't know whether to go for a 3 or 6 stop or even 2 stop.


I only recently got my first 10stop filter and it's fun to try :) If you're not sure about spending £26-28 on the Camdiox filters then you can try these too:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Xcsource-...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2ed746f0ec

That's what I bought... It seemed like a no brainer at the price with the comments I saw on Talk Photography. I don't mind spending all my money on gear but it's nice to get a bargain and this is pretty good for a tenner!

The trouble with a 10 stop (in my opinion :P) is that's difficult to get a different looking shot with one since there's so many people doing them. That doesn't mean you can't have a go anyway though and you can get some cool effects with cloudy skies when it's windy. Even with a 10 stop, the exposures aren't 'that' long if it's sunny. I was getting 5-6 seconds with a fairly narrow aperture when I tested mine in broad daylight.

Personally I don't see the point in getting anything between 2-6 stop since I can't imagine any scenario where I might need one? Maybe if I was trying to shoot sports on a really sunny day and I wanted some blur? They could come in handy if you wanted long exposures at sunset/sunrise but that's quite a narrow window since it has to be pretty damn dark so that you can't just use the 10 stop. Some grad filters would be nice for landscapes etc but then so would a lot of other things I'm sure.

I enjoyed testing out my filter but I'm not sure I'd want to go on holiday with one I'd never tried, much less a bunch of them! It would suck to miss a shot because you're not used to the kit :/

Just remember to enjoy the trip hehe :)
 
The only real purpose to the 2 to 4 stop NDs is for people that want to shoot at f/1.4 in the middle of a sunny day and hit their camera's 1/4000 or 1/8000th limit. Easier solution is just to stop down and move to ISO, or use a CPL.

I agree, ND Grads are much more useful for general landscape work.
 
He's just stating his opinion, I'm pretty sure Smr can make his own mind up :P





I only recently got my first 10stop filter and it's fun to try :) If you're not sure about spending £26-28 on the Camdiox filters then you can try these too:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Xcsource-...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2ed746f0ec

That's what I bought... It seemed like a no brainer at the price with the comments I saw on Talk Photography. I don't mind spending all my money on gear but it's nice to get a bargain and this is pretty good for a tenner!

The trouble with a 10 stop (in my opinion :P) is that's difficult to get a different looking shot with one since there's so many people doing them. That doesn't mean you can't have a go anyway though and you can get some cool effects with cloudy skies when it's windy. Even with a 10 stop, the exposures aren't 'that' long if it's sunny. I was getting 5-6 seconds with a fairly narrow aperture when I tested mine in broad daylight.

Personally I don't see the point in getting anything between 2-6 stop since I can't imagine any scenario where I might need one? Maybe if I was trying to shoot sports on a really sunny day and I wanted some blur? They could come in handy if you wanted long exposures at sunset/sunrise but that's quite a narrow window since it has to be pretty damn dark so that you can't just use the 10 stop. Some grad filters would be nice for landscapes etc but then so would a lot of other things I'm sure.

I enjoyed testing out my filter but I'm not sure I'd want to go on holiday with one I'd never tried, much less a bunch of them! It would suck to miss a shot because you're not used to the kit :/

Just remember to enjoy the trip hehe :)

Thanks, will enjoy I'm sure!

So there'd not be much point in me getting a 3 stop ND filter for £13 quid off ebay for the Tonika 11-16? I'm thinking mainly for the waterfalls...
 
:cool:
What each person wants to shoot is up to them. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean we can't all do the same if we choose, or not, as the case may be.

I forgot the reply directly to this. As Phal says, I am stating my opinion and offering potential advice for smr. I find the ocean and waves fascinating and love the lighting and patterns of the waves so would hate to loose that in a landscape photo. A blurry sea can add an ethereal quality but most of the time it doesn't work for me and it detracts from the photo like selected colour all over the top HDR. That is my own opinion.

You get a lot of beginners in this forum and until experienced people tend to just want to copy what other people do without thinking if that is what they want. IF smr WANTS long exposure seascapes, which he appears to, then that is fine and he can choose to do so. I was just pointing out that they aren't NEEDED for seascapes and he could save some money and hassle not buying an ND filter just to copy other peoples looks.

The other thing I was trying to do was clarify the strength of ND filter. If he wants that blurry sea or sky then a 10stop is really the way to go, not the 2/3 stop filters that were mentioned.
 
Thanks, will enjoy I'm sure!

So there'd not be much point in me getting a 3 stop ND filter for £13 quid off ebay for the Tonika 11-16? I'm thinking mainly for the waterfalls...

For the waterfalls a 3 stop would be sufficient but would not be for the seascapes. Typically with a waterfall you can get some good motion blur with a shorter exposure due to the speed of the falling water. If you are in overcast conduits or the waterfall is in a shadow (often the case) then stopping down to a standard landscape aperture and shooting at base ISO is typically sufficient. Again a CPL will give you 2 stops so that is something to consider.

The other thing is in landscape work it is actually good to overexpose as long as you don't clip highlights. You can gain another stop or 2 by over exposing by a stop or 2. Check the histogram and clipped highlight warnings to be sure things aren't too far to the right. The image will look too do bright on your LCD but bring that down in post. The advantage is the shadows will have far more details, you will have less noise, better color and will maximize dynamic range. But you won't get a straight form camera JPEG that is usable and you risk clipping highlights.

The other trick is just to stop down a little more. F/16 will be very slightly softer than f/11 due to diffraction but unless you are printing very big then you could stop down from f/11 to f/16 and gain another stop of exposure time.

These tricks will help toy with waterfalls without having to buy a 2-3 stop filter. For seascapes you will need a 10 stop if you want the dreamy sea look.
 
a lot of the better quality filters are double threaded...could you combine a nd4 with a CPL?

and would it matter which order they were threaded?
 
Not sure id want to use multiple filters tbh as it just multiplies any weaknesses in optical qualities
 
a lot of the better quality filters are double threaded...could you combine a nd4 with a CPL?

and would it matter which order they were threaded?

You can and is widely done but as Phal says, you want to make sure all your fitlers have good optical quality otherwise the defects start to accumulate.

Often times you will want the effects of a CPL even if you want a long exposure so you don't have much choice.
 
I'm put off getting a CPL for the Tonika as I hear it can lead to strange looking skies.
 
It is certainly true that a CPL will do strange things to BLUE sky on ultra wide angle photos but if you arent shooting blue skies then that isn't a worry. You will want to use a CPL to remove reflections form water or water droplets on foliage which will increase color saturation and contrast.

Here is an example I found on google:
http://media.teds.com.au/media/learning_centre/polarisers-ferns.jpg
Even on an overcast day foliage can appear more grey from the reflections, a CPL reduced that and you get that deeper green.

Here is another example:
http://famcart.com.my/image/data/Camera Product/FIlter/i-Lens CPL Filter/sample-cpl.jpg

OK the sky went a nice deep blue but there are a lot of other changes. The reflection on the water is gone so the stream looks much better. The Same effect has happened to the leaves so they are much greener. The trees in the background have much more contrast. Overall the photo is now much punchier, contrasty, vibrant and saturated, without spending a second in photoshop.



Here is another example from an overcast day:
http://brentmailphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PolarizingFilter1.jpg
 
He's just stating his opinion, I'm pretty sure Smr can make his own mind up :P

I shall make it for him! lol

:cool:

I forgot the reply directly to this. As Phal says, I am stating my opinion and offering potential advice for smr. I find the ocean and waves fascinating and love the lighting and patterns of the waves so would hate to loose that in a landscape photo. A blurry sea can add an ethereal quality but most of the time it doesn't work for me and it detracts from the photo like selected colour all over the top HDR. That is my own opinion.

You get a lot of beginners in this forum and until experienced people tend to just want to copy what other people do without thinking if that is what they want. IF smr WANTS long exposure seascapes, which he appears to, then that is fine and he can choose to do so. I was just pointing out that they aren't NEEDED for seascapes and he could save some money and hassle not buying an ND filter just to copy other peoples looks.

The other thing I was trying to do was clarify the strength of ND filter. If he wants that blurry sea or sky then a 10stop is really the way to go, not the 2/3 stop filters that were mentioned.

I don't disagree at all. Just that he said he wanted them and then you made out (in my reading of your post) like what he wants to shoot is done to death so why bother, that was all.

OOI, do you have a picture of the banding that appears with variable NDs at short focal lengths? Mine has arrived and, on the 50mm at least in my shanky test, looks great from 2 to 8. Want to see what I'm looking for when I do more experimenting with it.
 
Last edited:
ordered a 6 stop Hoya Pro ND for my 18-55 to actually have a play with one at least and take it from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom