allanwalls Loc: Fairhope, Alabama, USA

Good afternoon everyone.

I would like to get some advice on a gear purchase that I am contemplating. It concerns filters.

I have recently become rather fascinated with shooting landscapes. For the last couple of years I have dabbled, making use of a selection of mostly cheap, circular filters. I also have some decent circular filters in all sizes and of various brands (a variety of NDs, a couple of CPLs, and a few old, cheap ND grads). But I am not particularly happy with the images (odd color casts, flaring, etc.) and am ready to move to a full set of of better glass. I am looking for 100mm x 100mm and 100mm x 150mm, glass filters with a solid and reliable holder, preferably with an integrated CPL and 2-3 slots for stacking.

I started out compiling my Lee Filters wish list (.3/.6/.9-GND soft + .3/.6/.9-GND hard + .3/.6/.9-ND + 10 stop ND + 15 stop ND + integrated CPL + holder + 77/82 adapter rings) and when I hit $1,000 I stopped counting and started shopping around. But just about every other brand quickly ends up with a price tag in the stratosphere (some even more than the Lees).

I've looked at Formatt Hitech, Firecrest, NiSi, Haida Pro and a couple of others and they are all really steeply priced. Then I came across Zomei Z-Pro. Dirt cheap, by comparison to everything except Cokin (which I have a few of and don't care for). I have never heard of Zomei but started doing a little research and have since come across some glowing reviews from, apparently, non-sponsored users.

Long-winded, I know, but do any of you fine folks have experience with this, or any other, reasonably priced landscape filter system? As always, your advice will be greatly appreciated!

Allan

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have a Zomei ND filter. It was cheap. I bought it just to experiment with it. Rated to 5 stops indeed it is a 7 stops filter. I see some color shift when I use it.
I have old non circular polarizer filters from the film era and a Nikon circular polarizer that cost me more than all the other filters combined. In my case, I see no differences between the images from the circular and non circular polarizer. I see no significant differences to me between the old and the new filters.
I do not use polarizers to darken the sky I rather use them to shoot falls because of the 2 stops factor at full polarization and to eliminate reflections from non metallic surfaces.
In the case of a ND filter I would buy a good one, like Lee. You do not want off colors in your images.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I just bought a second Zomei Slim MC CPL for my larger diameter lenses. These are their higher priced CPLs, not their cheaper line with white lettering which you should avoid altogether. After some informal test shots with and without the filter using a wide angle prime lens and a tripod, I was satisfied with the optical quality of the glass. I also did some night shots at various angles into bright points of light, etc. to test for reflections. The cheaper Zomei filters were unusable, and these were the only ones I ever saw in reviews. (I knew better than buying the cheaper one but it was sent by mistake which was readily corrected.) The mid-priced slim "pro" MC line are altogether different and I believe would compare well with more expensive filters. At least I cannot fault them with the testing I did. Some will say go only with the best, but I don't mind a little inconvenience to save a few dollars here and there.

allanwalls Loc: Fairhope, Alabama, USA

Thank you both! One of these days I am going to find something that is too good to be true, but true nonetheless. Apparently it won't be a $16 Zomei filter!

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

From a review I read the Zomei is not glass, they are not multi coated, they have some color cast and there were exposure inaccuracies. https://stephenstuff.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/zomei-neutral-density-filters-testing/

I am currently a fan of Breakthrough, which you did not have on your list of considerations. https://breakthrough.photography/

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Cheap filters are basically poor investments in that you buy them, test them, discover that the perform poorly and usually can not return them. There is a lot of wasted time and energy.

If you are seriously involved landscape photography and see any potential in making large prints, the inferior quality and color shift side effects of bad filters will become more apparent.

Stacking filters, unless it is absolutely necessary, is not a good idea. When you add two or three more optical surfaces to you light path, you are asking for trouble- reflections, flare and loss of sharpness. Years ago, in the film era, we required many color correction and light balance filters, especial with transparency films. If you needed polarization or other additional effects, multiple filters were needed. Nowadays, what with variable white balance, the CC and filters are no longer needed.

Why do you need so many graduated ND filters? I do a significant amount of architectural exteriors and usually do not have too much difficulty with sky exposure. One or two GND will usually suffice and a good CPL will darken the sky sufficiently on a clear day. With waterfalls and fountains, if you want to blur their movement, a lower ISO will usually enable low enough shutter speeds at reasonable apertures.

I recommend the better filter lines. I have used them for many years and fine the hold up well in hard usage, maintain color accuracy, and add little or no loss of quality even a great degrees of enlargement. I use filters made by B+W, Zeiss, Hoya, Tiffen (professional), Harrison & Harrison and Sing-Ray.There may very well be somenew manufacturers on the scene that are producing good filters and are not charging outrageous prices, however, I can't recommend anythg I have no experience with or have not heard about through other professionals and I don't usually go by the "reviews" which are oftentimes hyperbolic advertising.

I treat filter usage like prescription drugs- you need to decide if the benefits outweigh the side effects. Those big lenses with big front element diameters are costly- why diminish their quality with cheap filters?

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

For landscape photography I have B&W and Breakthrough Photography CPFs and Lee 6 & 10 stop ND filters. I don't use graduated filters.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Sing-Ray Filters
www.Sing-Ray.com

1 800 486 5501

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I had Lee filters, Hitech filters and did not like them (strong color cast)! Cokin filters are the worst in that regard, I finally settled with using Singh Ray filters and I'm happy with how they perform! I do not use filter holders any more, I can work a lot faster just hand holding them, or use gaffer tape when I stack them!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Avoid cheap filters. Remember the filter becomes part of your optical system when attached to a lens. My preference for CP is B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC-Nano Filter, and B+W ND filters.
--Bob

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I agree to avoid the cheapest Zomei filters like the ones that appear in the stephenstuff review. However, the more expensive multi-coated line of slim CPL filters are glass and are definitely coated. I never saw them reviewed, only the cheap line.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I wouldn't buy a $16 CPL filter, either, no matter the brand. The better Zomei's are not too good to be true as they do cost more, just not as much you might pay elsewhere. That said, it is comforting to pay top dollar for a respected name even if you can't tell the difference. It does remove any doubt, which has its own benefits.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Higher quality, multi-coated glass 100x100mm and 100x150mm are EXPENSIVE.

And you're wanting 10 or 11 filters! If you are finding them for around $100 apiece, those are probably optical plastic and NOT multi-coated (MC glass tend to cost closer to $200 apiece, or well over $2000 for 10 or 11 filters with holders, etc.)

Those square and rectangular filters are also a pain in the arse to carry around and work with... bulky... require filter holders and adapters (more parts and bulk)... can't be shaded very well with a lens hood.... etc. The more affordable optical plastic generally are not multi-coated and are more difficult to safely clean, too.

GRADUATED NEUTRAL DENSITY:

Shooting digitally, Grad NDs are largely unnecessary. I stopped using mine years ago... had them left over from shooting film and I now only kept them in the event I need to use them with film again. That doesn't happen very often, even though I still have a number of film cameras.

With digital it is super easy to take two shots... one adjusted for the sky, the other for the rest of the scene... then use layers and masks or HDR in post-processing to combine the "correct" portion from each. If not possible to make two shots that way (such as when there are moving objects), another approach is to take a single RAW shot and double process it... adjusting two or more images differently and then using layers & masks or possibly HDR to combine them. In fact, the results doing this are at least as good and often a lot better than was ever possible with Grad ND filters... more controlled and precise. And once it's learned, it's pretty quickly and easily done. It is necessary to have and know how to use software capable of working in layers & masks (such as Photoshop or Elements... but not Lightroom), and possibly doing HDR effects.

CIRCULAR POLARIZERS:

IMO... for digital photography a quality, multi-coated Circular Polarizer is the single most useful filter. The best of those are:

B+W XS-Pro High Transmissive C-Pol (Schott glass, slim brass frame, 16-layer Nano multi-coating, Kaesemann polarizing foil, weather sealed): 77mm, $110. 82mm, $125.
B+W F-Pro High Transmissive (same as XS-Pro except not slim and 8-layer MC): 77mm, $110. 82mm, $114.
B+W MRC C-Pol (same as F-Pro except standard strength, not HT): 77mm, $100. 82mm, $160.
Heliopan High Transmissive (Schott glass, slim brass frame, 16-layer Nano MC, Kaesemann polarizing foil): 77mm, $195. 82mm, $227.
Heliopan SH-PMC (same as above, but not slim and standard strength C-Pol): 77mm, $146. 82mm, $176.
Breakthrough Photography X4 (Schott glass, slim brass frame, 16-layer MC): 77mm, $149. 82mm, $159.
Breakthrough Photography X2 (Asahi glass, alu frame, 16-layer MC): 77mm, $99. 82mm, $109.
Formatt-Hitech Firecrest SupeSlim (Schott glass, aluminum frame, 15-layer coatings): 77mm, $79 (sale). 82mm, $83 (sale).
Hoya HD3 (unspecified "optical" glass, slim aluminum frame, 16-layer Nano MC): 77mm, $200. 82mm, $224.
Hoya EVO (unspecified "optical" glass & frame material, 16-layer MC): 77mm, $156. 82mm, $170.
Hoya Pro1 Digital (unknown "optical glass", unknown frame, "multi-coated"): 77mm, $110. 82mm, n/a.
Hoya NXT (unknown "optical" glass, unknown frame, "anti reflective, hydroscopic coatings"): 77mm, $113. 82mm, $150.
Tiffen Digital HT (high transmissive, ColorCore glass, titanium frame, "multi-coated"?): 77mm, $126. 82mm, $170.
Marumi EXUS C-Pol ("optical" glass, Teflon thread alu frame, standard strength C-Pol not HT, Nano-like multi-coatings): 77mm, $118. 82mm, $134.

There are others... the best of which are higher priced. I'd avoid "combo" C-Pol of various types because they cost a lot more, and similar can be accomplished simply by stacking filters.

NEUTRAL DENSITY

Unless you're shooting video, I can't imagine why you would need five different strengths of ND (1-stop, 2-stop, 3-stop, 10-stop and 15-stop). Again I recommend screw-in filters and for still photography usually one or two will do.... such as a weaker 3-stop (0.9 or 8X) and a stronger 6-stop (1.8 or 64X). Those can be stacked to give 9 stop reduction in light, if needed. A C-Pol can also be used for weaker ND purposes (high transmissive C-Pol block approx. .75 to 1.5 stops, while standard C-Pol block 1 to 2+ stops, depending upon how they're adjusted).

ND are pretty highly specialized too (much more-so than C-Pol). In landscapes they are usually just used to allow slow shutter speeds in order to blur movement of water and similar. 15-stop ND are extremely strong and I think primarily used to shoot solar eclipses. Once again, high quality glass and multi-coated would be best.

Most of the above brands offer quality, multi-coated ND filters too. They tend to vary less wildly in price than C-Pol, so I won't go into detail.

IN OTHER WORDS...

You could buy a couple quality C-Pol in the two sizes you need for between $200 and $250.
And it would cost roughly the same or a little more for four ND (two strengths in each of the two sizes)...
So you'd end up with a total of around $400 to $600 invested in filters that...
... are higher quality and easier to clean than optical plastic.
... are multi-coated (or Nano MC for even easier cleaning and better durability).
... are smaller and easier to pack and carry around.
... don't require holders and adapter rings.
... can be used in conjunction with your lenses' matched hoods.

Finally, you could save some $ by only buying the 82mm size filters and using a step ring to fit them to your lens with 77mm filter threads. Personally I'm not a fan of doing that because in most cases it means that you won't be able to use the lens' matched lens hood..... and IMO lens hoods are even more important when using filters. You may be able to only buy certain of the filters in one size or the other, though. For example, maybe you don't need ND fitlers for both lenses... only one of the lenses would be likely to be used for the purposes where you're likely to use a specialized type of filter.

So few filters are necessary for digital photography, it makes sense to buy top quality and not cheap out. (Back in the days of film I carried 30 or 40 filters in a given size... now shooting digital I carry 2 or 3 per size.... and don't need all of them in all sizes because some lenses I use with filters... others I don't).

lightyear

With all lens filters, there are some basic facts:1. glass is always better than any plastic filter. 2. better quality glass is better than cheap glass (example : Tiffen non-professional filters)3. anti-reflection glass filters are better than non-coated glass filters.
After the above it gets more complicated, since the better quality (Canon, Nikon, B+W, Hoya, Marumi, Schneider, Heliopan,etc.) glass filters have various supposed grades of quality and coatings; the metal rim of the filter also makes a difference: brass does not 'bind' with the lens aluminum filter threads, knurled edges are easier to turn than smooth ones, dark colored rims reflect less than lighter ones; image transmission with polarizing filters varies from 95% to 98%; some makers have a better quality control system ( testing filters before selling them) than others.
As to the author who found no difference with linear( regular) and circular polarizers: the difference relates to the digital in-camera modern light meter which is more accurate with circular than linear polarizers.
I personally use Nikon, Hoya, Canon, Marumi, B+W filters and find all of them do what they are supposed to do. I had reflection problems in low light conditions with non-coated or poorly coated filters.
Some camera shop dealers try to sell filters in other than the above brands, due to greater profits, saying they are the same filter under another name. Maybe they are, maybe not.

Stan

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

One way to save on the CPF and circular ND filters is to get the filter size that fits your larger lens and buy step-up filter rings for each of your smaller lens sizes. Once you have the lens filter sizes recorded, call B&H or Adorama and the sales personnel will help you buy the correct step-up rings.