Lens hoods and screw-on filters

[Dedeye]

Will these two accessories work together?  I've already got the lenses and filters, thinking about adding some hoods.

Thanks!

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Yes, they will work together.  I keep filters on all of my lenses.  Have hoods for most of them too.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Dedeye wrote:

Will these two accessories work together?  I've already got the lenses and filters, thinking about adding some hoods.

Thanks!

---

Yes, if you are talking about lenses for interchangeable lens camera bodies.  I only use high quality CLEAR filters.  I do not want any filter that changes the color of the light entering the lens.  Maybe if I shooting the night sky, but otherwise I think not.

However, if all you are doing is shooting stills, then many types of lens filters are really no longer needed, such as UV, CPL, and even ND filters.  Nearly all of the benefits are no longer needed, or can be more effectively reproduced in post.

The CPL filters can impair some AF systems that rely on phase detection of the light.  Nearly every digital image sensor assembly has a UV filter built into it, so an extra filter on your lens is not really needed.  In fact, the camera knows how to compensate White Balance for the UV filter built into the sensor.  Adding a UV filter to your lens can change how accurately your camera corrects for White Balance.

If you are not shooting video, then you do not really need an ND filter, either.  Videographers use them to adjust their exposures.  Many photographers use them to smooth out moving water, making it look like ice, or one solid mass, by capturing a longer exposure.  You can achieve the same result with moving water by spending the same amount of time collecting a series of exposures and averaging them in post, or even in-camera on more advanced models.

[Dedeye]

So, why are clear glass filters more expensive than UV filters, also made of glass?

i would just get a UV filter, and use it for protection.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@Dedeye wrote:

Will these two accessories work together?  I've already got the lenses and filters, thinking about adding some hoods.

Thanks!

---

Yes, if you are talking about lenses for interchangeable lens camera bodies.  I only use high quality CLEAR filters.  I do not want any filter that changes the color of the light entering the lens.  Maybe if I shooting the night sky, but otherwise I think not.

However, if all you are doing is shooting stills, then many types of lens filters are really no longer needed, such as UV, CPL, and even ND filters.  Nearly all of the benefits are no longer needed, or can be more effectively reproduced in post.

The CPL filters can impair some AF systems that rely on phase detection of the light.  Nearly every digital image sensor assembly has a UV filter built into it, so an extra filter on your lens is not really needed.  In fact, the camera knows how to compensate White Balance for the UV filter built into the sensor.  Adding a UV filter to your lens can change how accurately your camera corrects for White Balance.

If you are not shooting video, then you do not really need an ND filter, either.  Videographers use them to adjust their exposures.  Many photographers use them to smooth out moving water, making it look like ice, or one solid mass, by capturing a longer exposure.  You can achieve the same result with moving water by spending the same amount of time collecting a series of exposures and averaging them in post, or even in-camera on more advanced models.

---

I really have to disagree. If you're trying to blur out water, using a ND filter is a lot less work than averaging multiple exposures. That said, I strongly dislike the current fad of blurring water anyway. And if you do it, it rarely comes out looking like ice.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

---

---

---

I really have to disagree. If you're trying to blur out water, using a ND filter is a lot less work than averaging multiple exposures. That said, I strongly dislike the current fad of blurring water anyway. And if you do it, it rarely comes out looking like ice.

---

Actually, it is fair easier to do both in post and in camera than you seem to believe.  I have not used DPP in a while, but I do not honk it is possible in any of the Canon software.  Correct me, if I am wrong.

In an app like Adobe Lightroom, it is just as easy as copying recipes in DPP.  Select multiple photos, and click GO.

Most of the mid-range and professional bodies allow you to do it in-camera.  Do you know how easy it is to capture a series of images when there is an intervalometer in the camera?  Setup as many exposures as you want.  Set the timer delay shutter, and stand back.  

The camera will fire the shutter for all of the captures with one touch of the shutter, and then combine them for you at the end of the capture.  Also, you you not dealing with the color distortion common to nearly all ND fialters.

Remember that shot.  The shutter speeds were exactly what I said they were. However, it is capture of 16 images over the course of 4 seconds.  I combined in them in LR.  The averaging process smooths out the water very nicely.

[Waddizzle]

I am saying that averaging smooths out the lake, which was moving more slowly than the fountains.  Instead, turning the fountains into solid cones, they are cones with some texture in their surfaces.  I think it is more pleasing to the eye than long exposures, either with or without an ND filter.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I am saying that averaging smooths out the lake, which was moving more slowly than the fountains.  Instead, turning the fountains into solid cones, they are cones with some texture in their surfaces.  I think it is more pleasing to the eye than long exposures, either with or without an ND filter.

---

As I'm pretty sure I said in an earlier thread, I like your picture of the fountains, despite my general opposition to deliberately blurring flowing water. And in that case combining multiple images worked fine.

But in the general case, one obvious disadvantage of multiple exposures vs an ND filter is that the former requires a tripod (and a very stable one at that), while the latter does not. And of course it works only on relatively static scenes.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I am saying that averaging smooths out the lake, which was moving more slowly than the fountains.  Instead, turning the fountains into solid cones, they are cones with some texture in their surfaces.  I think it is more pleasing to the eye than long exposures, either with or without an ND filter.

---

As I'm pretty sure I said in an earlier thread, I like your picture of the fountains, despite my general opposition to deliberately blurring flowing water. And in that case combining multiple images worked fine.

But in the general case, one obvious disadvantage of multiple exposures vs an ND filter is that the former requires a tripod (and a very stable one at that), while the latter does not. And of course it works only on relatively static scenes.

---

Respectfully disgagree with you there.  When it comes to using an ND filter to "solidify" moving water, people almost always use a tripod.  The long water exposures can be quite long, way too long for a handheld shot.

If it is a bright sunny day, and you're shooting portraits at f/1.4 on a bright sunny day with ND filter, then that's different.  You may not need a tripod for that.

[ebiggs1]

"... one obvious disadvantage of multiple exposures vs an ND filter is that the former requires a tripod... while the latter does not."

And the correct answer is Photoshop. One shot and a little knowledge of editing.

"...of course it works only on relatively static scenes"

Photoshop works every time. That fountain picture would have been beginner work in PS.