I've shot in the noonday sun in Big Bend N.P. and could have used a neutral density filter. The question is, which one? Would the ND .3 have been the correct one (is it also called ND3? Tiffen's new ones run $130, they're called Tiffen 9, but I also found one on Ebay for $18.99. I will post the link after somebody else posts.
A quick answer to your question is (generally): an ND .3 is a 1 stop filter; an ND .6 is a 2 stop; an ND .9 is a 3 stop; and an ND 1.2 is a 4 stop. Hope this answers your question.
nicksr1125 wrote:
A quick answer to your question is (generally): an ND .3 is a 1 stop filter; an ND .6 is a 2 stop; an ND .9 is a 3 stop; and an ND 1.2 is a 4 stop. Hope this answers your question.
In your experience, which one would you use in bright sunlight, a .9, or get a .3 and a .6 and stack them as needed?
If you only get one, then get the 3-stop ND filter (ND3 or ND0.9). Tiffen is a good brand, but the one you linked to is not dark enough for general use. I have one of these but rarely use it in favor of the darker ones. I usually take an ND.6 and ND.9 Tiffen for outdoor shooting.
Get the three stop. Dark enough to be useful, but unless you are using f/1.4. 1.8, 2.0 or maybe 2.8 lenses, it MAY not allow autofocus. Most cameras cannot reliably AF with an effective aperture smaller than f/5.6. If you are using a variable aperture lens and it is already at f/5.6, the effective aperture with the .9 filter will be f/16. Not a horrible deal - you will have to focus, lock the focus, then put on the filter.
CaptainC wrote:
Get the three stop. Dark enough to be useful, but unless you are using f/1.4. 1.8, 2.0 or maybe 2.8 lenses, it MAY not allow autofocus. Most cameras cannot reliably AF with an effective aperture smaller than f/5.6. If you are using a variable aperture lens and it is already at f/5.6, the effective aperture with the .9 filter will be f/16. Not a horrible deal - you will have to focus, lock the focus, then put on the filter.
I have a couple of 2.8's, but still use my 28-300mm because of it's flexibility. I'll have to check out the AF on it when at f16.
SteveR wrote:
I have a couple of 2.8's, but still use my 28-300mm because of it's flexibility. I'll have to check out the AF on it when at f16.
Now I'm confused. If you are shooting at f/5.6, you should not need an ND filter. The reason to have an ND filter is to shoot at large aperture, which normally results in shutter speeds greater than your camera allows. Based on the sunny 16 rule (aperture f/16, shutter speed 1/ISO), if you shoot at f/5.6 and ISO 200, you need a shutter speed of 1/1600 sec. It's when you want to shoot at f/2.8 or larger where you run into problems, because at that aperture you need a shutter speed 4 times faster (1/6400), and max shutter speed is typically 1/4000 or 1/8000. The 3-stop ND brings you back to 1/800 second, and you can even shoot at f/1.4 with 1/3200 second.
If you are concerned about glare, then an ND filter will not help. Instead, you need to use a polarizing filter (which cuts light by about 1-stop).
If you are trying to blur motion, then you need a really dark ND filter (9-10 stop). You put these on after focusing.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
SteveR wrote:
I've shot in the noonday sun in Big Bend N.P. and could have used a neutral density filter. The question is, which one? Would the ND .3 have been the correct one (is it also called ND3? Tiffen's new ones run $130, they're called Tiffen 9, but I also found one on Ebay for $18.99. I will post the link after somebody else posts.
B&H has Tiffin ND filter kits. Comes with a .6,.9, and a 1.2 for $119.24 and includes a carrying case. Check it out. I also have a Tiffen 3 or 10 stop filter I use most of the time, about 30 sec. f8 at iso 100 on a bright cloudy day. I use the others for shorter exposures.
kymarto
Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
SteveR wrote:
In your experience, which one would you use in bright sunlight, a .9, or get a .3 and a .6 and stack them as needed?
None of them, and never stack them. The only reason to ever use an ND is if you need a slower shutter speed at the aperture at which you want to shoot.
kymarto
Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
jcboy3 wrote:
Now I'm confused. If you are shooting at f/5.6, you should not need an ND filter. The reason to have an ND filter is to shoot at large aperture, which normally results in shutter speeds greater than your camera allows. Based on the sunny 16 rule (aperture f/16, shutter speed 1/ISO), if you shoot at f/5.6 and ISO 200, you need a shutter speed of 1/1600 sec. It's when you want to shoot at f/2.8 or larger where you run into problems, because at that aperture you need a shutter speed 4 times faster (1/6400), and max shutter speed is typically 1/4000 or 1/8000. The 3-stop ND brings you back to 1/800 second, and you can even shoot at f/1.4 with 1/3200 second.
If you are concerned about glare, then an ND filter will not help. Instead, you need to use a polarizing filter (which cuts light by about 1-stop).
If you are trying to blur motion, then you need a really dark ND filter (9-10 stop). You put these on after focusing.
Now I'm confused. If you are shooting at f/5.6, y... (
show quote)
And actually a pol filter will not help with glare: it can darken a blue sky at the right angle from the sun (extinction at 90%) and filter out the shine from non-specular reflections such as glossy leaves.
SteveR wrote:
I've shot in the noonday sun in Big Bend N.P. and could have used a neutral density filter. The question is, which one? Would the ND .3 have been the correct one (is it also called ND3? Tiffen's new ones run $130, they're called Tiffen 9, but I also found one on Ebay for $18.99. I will post the link after somebody else posts.
I use the 3 stop to slow the shutter speed when shooting water, even with very small ap. settings have never needed to focus first. I also use it when shooting daylight portraits and flash to keep my sync speed in line. You may want to check these out on Amazon, color correction seems spot on .
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SL1WSI2/ref=twister_B01CXBZCWY?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
SteveR wrote:
In your experience, which one would you use in bright sunlight, a .9, or get a .3 and a .6 and stack them as needed?
I agree with jcboy. Get the .9 (3 stop). I have all 3 & rarely use the 1 or 2 stop.
kymarto wrote:
And actually a pol filter will not help with glare: it can darken a blue sky at the right angle from the sun (extinction at 90%) and filter out the shine from non-specular reflections such as glossy leaves.
Glare is from direct or reflected sunlight; the pol filter will reduce reflected sunlight. Hence...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.