# ND Filter



## tanya7x (Oct 3, 2012)

I was looking online the other day trying to learn how to take long exposure pictures during the day and read that I'll need an ND Filter. I was just wondering if you guys could give me any ideas on what kind to get. I have a Nikon D3000 with the 18-55mm Kit lens. Any information would be very helpful as I am extremely new to all of this stuff! Thanks


----------



## tirediron (Oct 3, 2012)

Like any equipment, it depends on your budget.  If you want the best, you can spend $450 on a variable ND from Singh-Ray which will vary from 1 to 10 stops of neutral density.  If you still want the best and can't afford quite that much, than for ~$100 you can get a single value (usually 1, 2, or 3 stop) gel-style filter from Lee or Singh-Ray.  Very good ones can be had as regular screw-in filters in 1, 2, or 3 stops from Heliopan and B+W or as a gel-style from Cokin.  Decent ones from Tiffen and Hoya cost a little less.  DO NOT buy the cheap "packages" of filters that are rampant on Amazon and eBay.  They are worse than nothing.


----------



## tanya7x (Oct 3, 2012)

What do the stops mean? Is it better to have a 1 stop or 3 stop? Sorry I'm so unknowing lol


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2012)

It means how dark or how much light is being cut. 1 stop vs 10 stops  a 10 stop lets in very little light compared to a 1 stop. Longer shutter speeds
It's how you get silky waterfalls and such in bright day light.


----------



## tanya7x (Oct 4, 2012)

Ohhhhh ok!! Thank you for explaining that! I always wondered how people did that! What's the best stop to get?


----------



## tirediron (Oct 4, 2012)

A "stop" is the unit exposure is measured in.  If one stop is 'X' amount of light, then two stops is twice the amount, and three stops four times the amount of light.  So, if you have a shutter speed of 1/250 of a second, and you put a 1 stop ND filter on the lens and change nothing else, then the shutter-speed will be reduced to 1/125.  Using a two stop ND would make the shutter-speed 1/60.


----------



## vinithbraj (Oct 4, 2012)

The following blog entry has some ND related information and how to obtain correct exposures. 
Link: Correct exposures with nuetral density (ND) filters | Sense of Sight

Cheers


----------



## joaopsr (Oct 4, 2012)

Although I kind of agree with *tirediron*, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 4, 2012)

joaopsr said:
			
		

> Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though



I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!  Whereas kit lens + good filter = OK image!

Plus in the future once she has better lenses, she won't have to replace the filter


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 4, 2012)

I was kinda lazy and just got me a 52mm B+W ND filter.

Ken Rockwell claims they are the best. It was 50.

Well, 52mm is of course bad if I would get other lenses that dont have a 52mm filterthread, but so far all my lenses (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f/1.8, 55-200mm f/4-5.6, all are AF-S DX G) have a 52mm filter thread, so I'm good.

Professionals get themselves a 82mm version and an adapter for any other filter size though. This way you dont have to buy any other filter sizes.





joaopsr said:


> Although I kind of agree with *tirediron*, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though


Err we talk about Nikon kit lenses here. Yes they are plastic and dark, but optically they are very good.

If you stop it down to f/8 and keep the lens in the range 24-50mm, the 18-55mm is a very good lens. Same for the 18-105mm in the range 24-60mm.

A low quality filter though will kill any such potential. At very least it has to be glass.


----------



## joaopsr (Oct 4, 2012)

I'm not "extreme" enough to say you guys are wrong, obviously 

I agree that cheap filters are crappy and deteriorate IQ. Nonetheless, I see no point on spending $200 on a filter for a kit lens. Especially if it's a "screw-in" filter with such a small diameter. (if I was to do that, I'd buy a 77mm one and a step-up ring)

And kit lenses (even Nikon's) are not "very good". They're acceptable. I know, since I've used Canon's 18-55, Nikon's 18-55 (and also an old 28-85 from film cameras) and Sony's 18-70. They're all more than enough for web-publishing and small prints, and not even close to enough for medium-to-large prints. And I'm not a pixel-peeper, far from it... My Sigma 18-35 is worst than any of the lenses I mentioned before, and I still use it! 

It's not that the filter won't make it worst, but I can assure you that a good lens with a $5 filter will give you better result than a kit lens with a $200 filter, and on a bad lens you won't see the result of a cheap filter (not in "real life", anyway).

But, as I said, I tend to agree with your principle... sometimes


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> joaopsr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:







Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!!  :er:


----------



## Dao (Oct 4, 2012)

Most of the kit lens nowadays are not bad as far as sharpness goes especially if it is stop down to around f/5.6 to f/8. As for the good lens with bad filter,  I remembered one of the forum member here thought his new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens was defective because images produced by the lens were soft.  He fixed the problem by removing the filter from the lens.

I once saw a Polaroid ND filter review in youtube, not only it made the image soft, but also affect the color of the photo.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> joaopsr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's test that "theory" again...

Kit lens + cheap Cokin ND filter on Canon 20D, a few years ago:






Oh yeah, that's just horrible too!!!  :er:


----------



## leeroix (Oct 4, 2012)

how embarrassing, i would not have had the guts to post those...puke.       Just kidding.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 4, 2012)

Yeahbut... no one said Cokin was crap (I've got a boat-load of 'em and use them all the time!), they're not Lee or Singh-Ray, but they're definitely NOT crap.  "Crap" are those $10-20 sets on flea-bay from Hong Kong.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 4, 2012)

Buckster said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > joaopsr said:
> ...



I don't consider Cokin's to be "Bad Filters"! Are they Singh Ray or B&W, NO! But they beat the hell out of a lot of the cheap screw on filters...

So I don't think you disproved my theory at all!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Yeahbut... no one said Cokin was crap (I've got a boat-load of 'em and use them all the time!), they're not Lee or Singh-Ray, but they're definitely NOT crap.  "Crap" are those $10-20 sets on flea-bay from Hong Kong.


Those Cokins I used in those example shots all cost between $15 to $25 each. By any measure, they're common, cheap filters.  They have a bit of a magenta color cast that needs corrected in camera or in post even.  But that doesn't make them useless *crap*, the way some folks around here would have people believe.

And by the way - based on WHAT exactly???  They don't seem to own nor to have used them, so what are they basing their "advice" on?  Not experience, I guess.  Or maybe that's what they had when they were noobs without a clue, shot clueless noob-crap photos, blamed it on the gear, and are still blaming it on the gear.  Don't know and don't care.  All I care about is cutting through all the *CRAP* and getting to the truth.

Every time this subject comes up around here, some "know-it-all" makes claims that you've got to have $100 or better filters, or - better yet - $400 filters, or you'll have *CRAP* for photos in the end, and I'm sorry, but it's just not true.  Same thing goes for kit lenses and, again, sorry but it's just not true.  Same thing happens for lots of gear around here, and it's usually not true.

Are kit lenses and inexpensive filters just as good as the top of the line gear?  No, of course not.  But neither are they usually *CRAP*.  Crazily enough, they often get the job done, get it done well, don't cost a beginner an arm and a leg to try out a technique, and are very valuable to learn with, and cheap enough for someone who doesn't have a lot of money to spend to be able to play and STILL get good results.

I think it's just plain wrong to lay those *CRAP OPINIONS* on newer folks who come here looking for _*accurate*_ information, so I like to give the other side of that opinion and advice, complete with *actual examples* of what kind of *crap* one can actually expect by using the actual gear in question.

But maybe that's just me...


----------



## Buckster (Oct 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


Yeah, actually, I did.

The P sized ND filters in those shots come to $17.50 each in a bundle set of 3 strengths and includes the filter holder.  That makes them, quite literally, some of the cheapest ND filters available which, according to you and others who like to weigh in on these topics, are therefore *CRAP* - OR you'd recommend them to new folks who come here looking for info on what to get without spending an arm and a leg but still able to play and make decent photos while you're pontificating about the subject and using words like *CRAP* to describe things inaccurately.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2012)

This is the reason I didn't buy any filters period for my kit lens...


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 5, 2012)

Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always!     I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc... 

Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter  WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)

A $40 Hoya or Tiffen is going to be a LOT better than junk like this filter.... Or yes, even "Cheap" Cokins are going to be better....

Whatever.....


----------



## Buckster (Oct 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always!     I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...
> 
> Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter  WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)
> 
> ...


PROVE IT.  SHOW the tests YOU'VE performed.  All you have is an uninformed opinion, since you've not done what it takes to become informed with real empirical testing and data and actual evidence.  I presented actual photos produced with the actual gear.  Where's yours?

You took Tirediron's post of "cheaper filters", and through the quoted comment of joaopsr equated them to "bad filters" that *WILL* render *CRAP* photos as though there is simply no question or doubt about that at all.  In doing so, you decided to come off as an expert and state that "cheap"="bad"="crap" and you emphasized it with an exclamation point, as if you cannot possibly be mistaken and what you said has no way to be refuted.  You did that, not me.

When I point out that Cokins are indeed some of the cheapest filters that can be found, but AREN'T bad filters and WON'T necessarily render CRAP photos, using real-world examples, suddenly  cheap ISN'T crap in your world and now you're backpedaling on that, while trying to save face of course for what you actually said.

I really don't care, as long as we get to the truth of it: The folks coming in here for information on ND filters don't need and don't deserve to get the IMPRESSION, let alone the outright GOSPEL you'd like to pretend it is, from you or anyone else that they need to buy VERY EXPENSIVE ND filters or they'll get *CRAP PHOTOS*.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always!     I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...
> 
> Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter  WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)
> 
> ...


BTW, that's a 52mm.  Who would buy a 52mm?  Oh, you might.  Well, look up the 77mm or the 82mm, which are much more common sizes to be getting, and then see if you can find them cheaper than a $17.50 Cokin.

By the way, in addition to more expensive ND filters, I have one of those VERY cheap variable density ND filters like you just posted (because I actually DO like to test out stuff and KNOW what I'm talking about), but I have the 77mm size, and I'm ready to start pwning you on IQ with that as well, and I'll even use a kit lens to do it, if you'd like to REALLY get pwned.

Just let me know when you're ready.


----------



## batmura (Oct 5, 2012)

Buckster said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > joaopsr said:
> ...


This is the kind of picture I want to take someday! Can I do that with a cheap ND filter on my D3100 kit lens? How many stops should the filter be to get such beautiful results? Also, did you photoshop this pic at all? I love it. Taking such photos was the reason I bought my first DSLR.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 5, 2012)

batmura said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


If by "cheap", you mean less than $20 bucks, like say, a $17.50 Cokin ND filter, why yes, yes you can!  



batmura said:


> How many stops should the filter be to get such beautiful results?


For this shot, I used a graduated blue for the water, a graduated sunset and a mauve for the sky.  Then I used a 3 stop ND filter over all to turn the waves to mist.  I shot it as soon as the bridge lights came on: 20 seconds at f/8, ISO 100 @ 22mm.



batmura said:


> Also, did you photoshop this pic at all? I love it.


I run all my photos through processing, and that usually includes Photoshop for me.  I shot this some 10 years ago, so I don't recall the exact steps I took with it, but my general PS workflow includes:

1. Remove any sensor-dust spots that may be affecting the image (was much more of a problem 10 years ago!).
2. Correct color/temperature cast to taste.
3. Crop to taste.
4. I usually apply an S curve and push the saturation to taste.
5. Resize for web (and/or printing, etc).
6. Sharpen.



batmura said:


> Taking such photos was the reason I bought my first DSLR.


Enjoy, and have fun with it!


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 5, 2012)

Buckster said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always!     I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...
> ...




Cute... especially since I don't own any lenses with a 52mm objective...  lol!  You can do whatever you would like... it means nothing to me. I was trying to help the OP... all you are doing is attacking my post. If you don't like it... just ignore it, like I do most of yours!


----------



## pictureperfekt (Oct 5, 2012)

Buckster...you've done it again!
Having been fortunate to drive over that bridge for my commute, and be in awe of it's beauty throughout my childhood...I've sailed under it, been driving mid span when the blue angels flew directly overhead, even knew of someone that flew a plane underneath it, but I have not ever seen it look like it does in your photograph (although by the way the sky looks it does remind me of the world series in 1989) I love it!
I dont often purchase photographs, but would love to inquire if you would sell this and if so what size?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 5, 2012)

pictureperfekt said:


> Buckster...you've done it again!
> Having been fortunate to drive over that bridge for my commute, and be in awe of it's beauty throughout my childhood...I've sailed under it, been driving mid span when the blue angels flew directly overhead, even knew of someone that flew a plane underneath it, but I have not ever seen it look like it does in your photograph (although by the way the sky looks it does remind me of the world series in 1989) I love it!
> I dont often purchase photographs, but would love to inquire if you would sell this and if so what size?


Thank you kindly.

Prints of my photos are available in any standard sizes you like, up to 6 feet on the long side.  PM me for further details if interested.


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2012)

Thread unlocked and gets ONE more chance before its simply trashed. 

Anyone with personal problems with other members either take it to private messages or use the ignore feature of the forums. It's getting beyond a joke keeping up with some of the petty squabbles between experienced members of the forum - especially when simple differences of opinions on matters are used or become fight zones. We do expect members to exercise a degree of self moderation. 
No one revisits the fight though the debate on the merit of filters can continue - if you want to take this any further pm me.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 5, 2012)

I use B+W, Hoya and Cokin filters....... oops, got a Tiffen in the bag too.


----------



## Overread (Oct 5, 2012)

Buck - out of interest have you got a series of 100% crop tests to show for the effect of the filters? Web resizes are a poor way to determine quality issues as heck even 8mp phone camera pictures can look plenty sharp and detailed when resized for the internet and yet will show up significant differences when enlarged for other purposes.

The argument for and against cheap filters that I've always understood is that the cheaper filters can and will cause you loss of overall image quality (most visible at the larger magnifications). Cheaper and low grade filters will show this the most (and here we can debate between what brand options are cheap and bad and which are good bargines). I've also read and seen where users have had problems (this was with your dirt cheap UV filter) where the filter actually managed to mess up the AF system in the camera, throwing it off by a small margin (but enough to cause focus issues).


When it comes to filters my view is:

1) Get the best you can afford for your budget and market limit.

2) If you're getting a ND graduated filter same extra and get yourself a square filter and a filter holder (Cokin make an affordable setup for both). This gives you control over where the line of graduation in the filter lands within the scene itself; where as screw thread filters of this kind will force it upon the middle of the scene always (which is very compositionally limiting).

3) If you get a large filter size and then step down rings you can save money because you can sink more into a high quality filter, and then use the cheap rings to use it on various lenses. BUT you've also just removed the ability to use your lens hood on any smaller lenses. This might prove to be a pain in certain lighting conditions. If you're going to go for quality in a single filter for Neutral Density (ND) or ND Graduated filters I would strongly suggest the filter holder approach. you get a single multi-use filter and a square filter you can use on any lens for when you need to - and yes you've still got the problem of no lens hood, but you've gained in that you can now easily stack them with other ND filter and ND grad filters later on as you increase your setup.


----------

