JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

I have done this for many years with no problem. Buy the filters for the largest diameter lenses you have, and then use the rings. As others have said, buy good quality ones - not inferior as they could cause problems. And remember that you then need to buy lens caps to fit. I typically leave the rings on the camera all the time, thus the need for the lens caps in the bigger size.

lightyear

Brass instead of aluminum rings jam up in the threads less. Also, rubbing the threads with a #2 pencil lead leaves some graphite (pencil lead) residue on the threads which is a very minimal lubricant also permitting the rings to unscrew easier.

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

Basics:

Use the largest filters possible, at least the ones that fit your les with the largest filter mount.

With wide-angle lenses, you may encounter vignetting if the adapter ring is too thick and causes the filter to mount further for the front element. There is a special (thin) low-profile filter for superwide lenses. I don't know if there are thinner step-up rings($).

Avoid stacking filters.

The use of adapter rings in general may provide more grip or torque when fitting filters and rings- avoid overtightening.

Be careful- avoid cross-threading by hasty installation.

Purchase high-quality lens attachments to avoid IQ loss and mechanical jamming.

Keep all your rings clean and safe and prevent deforming.

User ID

You have hit on *why* they were more popular predigital. With film, most "fake" looks were considered intriguing. With digital where today you can quickly and easily have endless versions of "fake" or abnormal, its no longer so intriguing in and of itself.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

The only problem is not being able to use your standard lens hoods. I use an old Pentax 77mm clip on hood that I used with my 6x7 camera.

lightyear

My adapter rings also have threads on the inside rim of the outside permitting me to screw on a lens hood in that diameter. I put a 77mm adapter on 67, 72 lenses, use a 77 mm hood.
Stan

Leland22 Loc: Texas

Agree with Sidewalkastronomy. Get the 72 and use step up rings.I have had no issues. A tip that works. Before you screw on the filter, run the threads against your nose to get natural oils on the threads.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It sounds like you’re talking about a UV filter as a protective cover for the lens. I’m not gonna go into whether it’s a good idea or not. There are good arguments in both sides and it’s your choice. What I will say is that if you’re using a UV filter for protection, (and there really is no other reason to use one on a digital camera), then it makes no sense to be swapping it between lenses using step-up rings. You should really buy the proper size filter for each lens. Continually screwing that filter off and on is probably putting that lens in more risk than not having a filter. Also, as was noted by others, when you start using step-up rings your lens hoods won’t fit and many believe that the lens hood offers as much or better protection than the filter. Yes, as someone else said, you can get screw on lens hoods, but those screw-on type are a hassle and lens hoods are designed for particular lenses. You might have a telephoto and lens hood that’ll vignette in a wide lens or a wide angle hood that doesn’t give coverage for a telephoto.

Oops. Went back and realized I didn’t read that completely. Yes step up rings are great for specialty filters, but I’d do some research to determine how beneficial those filters are for digital photography. Many of those things are easily handled in camera or during post. The only filters I use are Polarizer, IR and ND filters

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Trapper,

I no longer use step up and step down rings for that purpose. The main reason is because with most modern lenses they make it impossible to use the lens hood. But I also don't use "protection" filters like UV unless they are really needed... the lens hood provides better protection when I'm shooting. (And the lens cap when I'm not shooting.) Plus I think it's pretty silly to think a thin piece of glass is going to provide much protection. Now, I do have UV filters to fit my lenses, but only fit them onto the lens when they are actually needed. That's pretty rarely. Other types of filters are much more useful, IMO. Before you put too much faith in "protection" filters, I suggest you watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds Note: UV filters served a real purpose back in the days of film. A lot of film was overly sensitive to UV light, which would cause images to have a tint. The filter prevented that. While digital is not overly sensitive to UV and doesn't have the same problem as film are still some rare instances with digital where a UV can be useful, such as reducing "blue haze" in the distance in scenic shots. The effect is pretty slight, though. I probably use UV filters on my lenses 1% of the time or less.

But you asked about step-up and step-down rings, not UV filters. Another reason I don't use them on my lenses is because so few filters are needed for digital. It was different back in the days of film, when a lot of filters were needed and it was cost-prohibitive to buy full sets of them in a variety of sizes. But with digital there are few filters needed. What I use most by far are Circular Polarizers. They do a lot for scenic shots... reducing reflections off foliage to enhance greenery, deepening the blue of the sky. They also are useful for portraits when people wear eyeglasses or have shiny skin. They can be useful for product photography and still life, too, controlling reflections. One thing I'm careful about is to not overdo their use... sometimes the reflection is an important aspect of an image. Polarizing needs to be done carefully on very wide angle lenses, because they will cause an uneven effect in large expanse of sky. That's because the polarization effect is strongest at 90 degrees to the light source and the effect fades as you approach 0 or 180 degrees. Polarizers also will make rainbows disappear, if trying to photograph one. So while I have them in various sizes to fit most of my lenses, I still use them sparingly... probably around 15% of the time or less.

Another type of filters that serve a rather specialized purposes with digital are Neutral Density. They allow slower shutter speeds or larger lens apertures than are possible within the adjustment range of the camera and lens, for special effects with water or making traffic "disappear" from a city street scene with a long exposure, or rendering shallow depth of field effect with a large aperture in brighter lighting conditions. I have two strengths of ND filters (3-stop and 6-stop) in just a couple sizes for lenses that I may want to use for those purposes. These filters also see very occasional use... maybe 2% of the time or less.

I still have and very, very occasionally use some "portrait" filters that I've carried over from when I shot film. I've kept a couple "black splatter" and a "black grid" filter (homemade). These are used to reduce fine detail in portraits, to make people's skin look nicer (most useful for feminine portraits... not used often for masculine). Largely the same effects can be accomplished in post-processing though, so I guess keep these more out of habit than actual need. Plus I just don't do that many portraits any more. So these filters are on my lenses far less than 1% of the time.

That's it. I no longer carry around Graduated ND (which aren't round screw-in filters anyway, so step rings are largely unnecessary). I also now don't use any warming or cooling filters, color enhancers, color correction or color conversion filters. Nor do I carry any filters for black and white images, like I did with film. They simply aren't needed for digital. All their effects can be accomplished in post processing... often better than was ever possible with filters.

All that said, I still have some step-up rings. I now only use them to stack my filters for safe, convenient storage off my lenses, in my camera bags. I use metal "filter stackers" on each end (have to buy one in the largest and one in the smallest sizes to do that). Then I use the step rings in between the different filter sizes. This set up keeps them clean and very unlikely to get broken, while making a single stack of some 12 or 15 filters that fits neatly into one of the "lens pockets" of the bag.

epd1947

You will likely have an issue of vignetting when adapting a 72mm filter to a lens that calls for 77mm - so buying the 77mm size would eliminate that issue. The other issue is that using a larger size filter via an adapter will prevent the mounting of the lens hood designed for your smaller lenses. Using filters increases the chances of getting unwanted flares in your images and that risk is exacerbated by not being able to use the lens hood.

Not a fan of filters - unnecessary UV filters included - any color shifts you are looking to introduce with specialty filters can be done easily in post with almost any image editing software - especially with raw capture.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

I agree. Also you won’t be able to use your lens shade. Buy the right size filter for the lens you will be using. Look for used filters from reputable places. This advice is from someone who has used them. And organization is a headache.

ScottWardwell Loc: Maine

Make sure you are not threading filters and rings made of dissimilar materials. The greatest chance of locking them together is if one is plastic or aluminum being mated to brass. Pick a reputable brand that makes their own rings of the same material their filters are built from.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I use protective filters on ALL my lenses but I live 3 miles from ocean and salt water rivers. I protect my lens from salt air and I have the need to clean them more often then most, so that's my reason. Rather replace filter then lens.

User ID

(Download)

User ID

That is contrary to Right Practice.
Wherever did you get that, from a youtube "expert" ?