Richard2673 Loc: Eastern Oregon

Good Morning, everyone.
Will be getting a new camera body and a couple of lenses in the near future. Will be doing mostly landscapes and flower closeups. What are the basic filters that I would need?? (preference is B+W band).
IF things that have been printed lately about the Canon 5DS - R are true, that will be the camera of choice.

tusketwedge Loc: Nova Scotia Canada

Are you new to photography?

Mr. B Loc: eastern Connecticut

The basics would be a circular polarizing filter (CPL) and clear or UV haze filters, mostly used for lens protection. I use B&W filters exclusively. The glass and brass threads are well worth the cost.

Boone Loc: Groundhog Town USA

Well if you are going to do landscapes, a CPL is a must have filter! Graduated Neutral ND filters are also a good filter to have. There are a lot of landscape shooter on here that can tell you more than I can on that subject.

But if you want a very nice set of "Close up filters" for flowers, I would suggest these:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WOWA82/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Their really inexpensive, but they produce surprisingly sharp images. I bought a set of these last Nov. for the heck of it and was really surprised at what I got. Nice case, 4 sharp filters. I read the reviews, and I thought for the money I would tack them onto my order. Very glad I did!

I attached a photo I took using the 4X filter. (1x, 2x, 4x, 10x in kit) It was shot hand held, no cropping in post, just sharped. Nothing else done to photo. Thanks, Boone
For $12.00, I am liking it! Thanks, Boone.

(Download)

Greenguy33 Loc: Rhode Island

One thing I can say about B+W is that they have TERRIBLE customer service. I e-mailed them 3 times with a question and never received a reply.

Richard2673 Loc: Eastern Oregon

NO. Had a Canon 5D MII, but sold it and my lenses a couple of years ago; used the money towards purchasing a house. New lenses will be Canon 24-75 f2.8 L, 100 macro L, and the 180 macro L.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Your close-up is nice, I like the inexpensive options. ;)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You might want to rethink the brand -

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

This review basically says that the expensive brands are not all they are cracked up to be - and that if you are looking to have a minimum negative impact on your image, Hoya's mid-level glass is actually better than their premium filter.

Big difference between the cheap stuff and the expensive stuff is the mount - the cheap ones are plastic - the others are brass.

Other than a filter to protect your lens - and there are widely divided camps on both sides of this - the most important filters are the circular polarizer and the neutral density filters.

The 5DS and the R variant look a lot like a Nikon D810 with an extra 13.7 mp. Interesting. When does it come out?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Richard - you don't need two macros. Just get the 180L, far superior. If you want another general purpose prime in the 100mm range, get the 135L. If you only have a digital body, get clear filters rather than UV, assumed for protection.

ras422 Loc: Virginia

I have seen this ---thanks for posting again always interesting to review.
:thumbup: Rich--wonder if nikon will join the 50mp soon?

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Boone - thanks for the suggestion and for sharing that first-class closeup image of a ring - it "left no rings" in my estimation - bravo!

Robeng Loc: California

B+W filters are real good, I like Singh-Ray even better. Also like Lee filters.

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

I agree to both of those, and if you are inclined to buy clear or UV you might as well get the UV which can be of some photographic use in very high altitude shooting. Benefits (or not) of those have been argued all too much here on UHH, so read past posts for more opinions.
-- Buy the best filters you can afford, or even spend a little more than you want to. B+W or other top-end ones that are optically flat and have wonderfully amazing (and hard) coatings are worth it, cheap ones are better not used at all.
-- The sets of close-up filter-type lenses will get you by and produce better results than most want to admit, but start saving up for that genuine macro lens that you'll want some day anyhow!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

B+W on my 12-40, which is my everyday lens. Everything else gets a lens hood.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

FILTERS: B+W are a good brand, but like everyone else they sell different price point/quality levels.

Definitely get a Circular Polarizer. Top of the line B+W is their X-Pro Kaësemann. Probably the main difference is this has their new MRC-Nano coatings that might be a little more scratch resistant and easier to clean. The B+W F-Pro Kaësemann also is fully multi-coated and quite good. Both the Kaësemann are better edge-sealed against possible moisture intrusion and might use a slightly finer polarizing grid than the standard F-Pro C-Pol MRC. Pretty hard to tell apart the results from any of them, though.

A C-Pol is by far one of the most useful filters for digital scenic shots, reducing or controlling reflections, increasing color saturation, deepening the blue of the sky to make clouds really "pop", etc. The effects of C-Pol are very difficult or impossible to replicate in post-processing with softwares.

If only wanting to buy one to start out, I would recommend getting the size for your landscape lens and not necessarily for the macro lens(es). There is just less need for a C-Pol when shooting most macro (where you usually can control light and reflections in other ways) or with telephoto focal lengths.

UV filters for "protection" are kinda silly IMO, but better than "clear filters for protection". Occasionally a UV filter also can be used to reduce atmospheric haze in an image (although similar can usually be done in post-processing), as well as to pop onto the lens to protect it if shooting in blowing sand or salt-air at the seashore or some other occasional situation where a thin piece of glass might actually give the lens some additional protection. Lens hoods and lens caps actually do a lot more in terms of protection (and, sort of ironically, when using a filter it's even more important to use a lens hood). B+W's 010 MRC are fine quality UV filters.

DO NOT buy B+W Graduated Neutral Density filters. They only make the round screw-in type, which means the transition line of the filter will always be right across the middle of your images. That won't be where you want it, much of the time. I'm really not sure why anyone still makes round Graduated ND filters.

If you want to use Graduated ND filters, I recommend Lee or Tiffen or Singh-Ray rectangular type and the appropriate size holder to use with them (also requiring lens adapters and special hoods or flags). One and two stop ND-Grads are what are most commonly used. The rectangular type can be slid up and down in the holders and rotated as needed, to match the horizon line in images.

However, I gotta say that my ND Grad set has been gathering dust for a couple years now. With digital it is very easy and much more controllable to simply do exposure adjustments in post-processing and achieve better results than were ever possible with the filters. If the subject is stationary, it also can be done with multiple exposures in-camera. Since learning to do this in post, I haven't had much need for my filter set.

Full ND filters might interest you for some special effects in landscapes. For example, if you want to use longer shutter speeds to deliberately blur down flowing water or need to be able to use large apertures in broad daylight for shallow depth of field, with digital an ND filter is usually the best or even the only solution. I'd recommend a 6, 8, 9 or 10 stop filter, as what's typically the most useful. B+W makes excellent ND MRC (multi-coated) in various strengths. I believe they use the naming convention where 0.90 equals one stop.

I do not recommend Variable ND filters. These are essentially double polarizers and the reasonably affordable ones tend to give ugly color tints and strong "X" patterns in images. Even the ultra expensive ones aren't totally immune to issues. There really isn't a lot of reason to get the variable, anyway, unless you are planning to shoot video and need to be able to really fine tune exposures. Usually for still photography just one or two "fixed" strength NDs that are fairly strong (again, 6 to 10 stops) are all that's needed, with all the other adjustability built into modern DSLRs.

Among the round filters (C-Pol, UV and ND... but not ND Grads), B+W's better ones - MRC and up - are quite good. But Hoya HD and HD2, Heliopan SHPMC, Schneider, Singh-Ray and some others are also very good. I hear great things about Marumi, too, but haven't ever used them personally.

LENSES:

You may want to check out the Canon 24-70/4L IS USM... a bit smaller and lighter than the 24-70/2.8L USM II. Plus the f4 has IS and uses 77mm filters, while the f2.8 doesn't have IS and uses 82mm filters. An f4 lens is usually more than adequate for landscape photography, since we are usually stopping down to even smaller apertures anyway, in search of greater depth of field.

And the 24-70/4 costs $1000 less. That could go a long way toward adding a wider lens too, which you may want for landscape shots. Personally I use a Canon 20/2.8 USM (about $550 with lens hood) a lot, but there are also two Canon 16-35mm (f2.8 for $1700 or f4 for around $1200) or 17-40/4L ($840).

Canon actually offers two 100/2.8 macro lenses. The $950 100L has IS, which might be helpful when using the lens at non-macro distances, but gives considerably less assistance at higher magnifications. Canon uses a Hybrid-IS in that lens, that's more effective than most at high macro magnification, but still probably only gives about 1 stop's worth of assistance or less at full 1:1. Personally, since I nearly always use a tripod or at least monopod for macro shooting, I chose the 100/2.8 USM Macro without IS and costing $600 instead ($650 by the time you also get the lens hood, which isn't included with a non-L-series lens). You would be hard pressed to tell apart the images from either lens.

Neither of the Canon 100mm macro lenses come with a tripod mounting ring, but they are available accessories and I fitted one to my lens right away and would highly recommend it. The OEM Canon Tripod Ring D for the 100L IS costs $200, while Tripod Ring B for the 100/2.8 USM costs $160. There are considerably cheaper third party versions of each of these rings, if Canon's seem a bit pricey. Also, the 180L Macro comes with Tripod Ring B, which could be switched back and forth onto the 100/2.8 USM as needed (but won't fit the 100L IS), instead of buying another ring. (Note: Tripod Ring B is also used on the MP-E 65mm Macro lens and a couple of the telephoto lenses, though the non-macro lenses usually use the off-white version).

No argument about the EF 180/3.5L Macro lens... It's very good and won't disappoint for macro purposes. It is more of a specialty lens, though, less useful for non-macro purposes than either of the 100mm lenses, because it's rather slow focusing even with USM. By the way, both Sigma and Tamron have 180mm macro lenses that are quite good. Sigma actually offers two, one is similar in specs to the Canon, while the other is an f2.8 and has stabilization (OS) added. In a way, stabilization makes more sense on this longer macro focal length, than on the 100mm. Canon hasn't gotten around to adding it to their 180mm yet, but no doubt will increase the lens' price by at least a few hundred $ when they finally do.

Anyway, the 180mm is rather tricky to get a steady shot, is more of a dedicated tripod lens than the 100mm lenses.

OTHER STUFF:

If you don't already have them, you also might want to consider a good tripod and a flash. Tripod for both landscape and macro work, and flash especially for the macro work. For macro work, some sort of focusing stage is a real time saver. But, if using a tripod head with an Arca-Swiss style quick release platform and matching lens and camera plates, it's possible to effectively use an extra long lens plate on the macro lenses as sort of a "macro focusing slider". That's less complex and less expensive than a focusing stage.

There are dedicated macro flash (MR14EX Ring Lite and MT24EX Twin Lite). But frankly a single standard flash such as 430EX or 600EX also can serve well for macro work, yet still serve general purpose. I use both the Canon macro flashes, but the Ring Lite almost exclusively with the MP-E 65mm at very high magnifications, well beyond what either the 100mm or 180mm lenses offer. I don't care for flat lighting of a Ring Lite at more "normal" macro magnifications (up to about 2:1). The Twin Lite gives much more control over light ratios, to give more interesting lighting, but is rather bulky and expensive. A lot of the time I just use a single 550EX or 580EX, handheld and attached to the camera via an off-camera shoe cord. That works pretty darned well for macro shots.

CAMERA: 5DIII is a very nice camera. And the strongly rumored 5Ds sounds like it will be awesome, but I can't help but wonder how many people will really need 50MP! There are bound to be some trade-offs, such as top ISO 6400? Not sure I'd go with the "R" version without a low pass filter... Ultimate sharpness and fine detail perhaps, but at risk of moiré. I suspect it will be a fairly specialized camera (not very usable for video, for sure). There's also rumor of a 5D Mark IV coming in August, with more modest increase in MP, and who knows what other improvements.

Now, I'm a Canon shooter, but have to say if you ever considered a switch to Nikon (or any other brand), now would be the time to do it. Before you are heavily invested in Canon gear again. Nikon has some superb lenses, too (such as the 14-24/2.8 and 105mm macro). Their Sony-manufactured 36MP sensors are current state-of-the-art for full frame cameras, too (pending release of Canon's 50MP this coming week... then we'll have to wait and see what all the tests and reviews have to say about it). Sony, Pentax and Olympus all have a lot to offer, too.... though none of them have as extensive systems as Canon and Nikon.