zigipha Loc: north nj

or just brighten in post process a couple of stops (if shooting raw)

n0irw Loc: Perry, OK

Went with a Tiffen polarizer I've been using Tiffen filters for years in stills and professional video.....thanks for the input!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First, I also would encourage you to get a C-Pol before an ND filter. A C-Pol will be much more widely useful.

A 1, 2 or 3 stop ND is a "weak" filter that really serves little purpose for still photography. One exception is when using an ultrawide, where a C-Pol often tends to give uneven effect. In that case, a weak ND might be useful. However, neither of your lenses are ultrawides. (Your 18-55mm only goes "slightly wide" ).

Or, maybe people are confusing ND with Graduated ND. 1, 2 and 3 stop Grad ND are much more useful for scenic shots. But, shooting digitally a lot of the same effect can simply be done in post-processing... In fact it can be done much more accurately in PP, than any filter on the lens is capable of doing. My set of Grad NDs hasn't been used in several years. I used them a lot with film. But now shooting digital almost exclusively, instead I just take two shots or double process a RAW file, then combine the "correct" portion from each image into a single final image. Once you learn to do this, you'll find it pretty easy and far more precise than any filter was ever able to do.

Both your lenses use the same size filter, so I recommend NOT buying an oversize C-Pol (or ND). Get a 52mm C-Pol and you'll still be able to use the lens hoods, which are good to use all the time. Also, you can use the cap you already have to protect the filter while it's on the lens. I suspect you'll find you use the filter most on the 18-55mm anyway.... The type of shots being made with wide to standard lenses is different from what telephotos are used for... and the wide angle to normal shots are typically more in need of the effects of a C-Pol. This isn't a rule or anything like that... it just sort of works out this way.

Back when I was shooting film it was different, because I used several dozen different types of filters. Buying them all in a lot of sizes to fit different lenses would have greatly multiplied the number of filters I carried around (which was already close to 100... including polarizers, ND, Grad ND, color conversion, color correction, black & white and several special effects). So I "stepped" my lenses to be able to use two sizes of filters.

The problem with this was having to find proper fitting lens hoods that would work with the stepped-up lenses. The original, good fitting hood was no longer usable.

Today, with digital, we only need a few types of filters... so I think it's false economy to used stepping rings and not be able to properly fit a lens hood.

Back to ND filters... I agree with this:



A "strong" ND filter in the 6, 8 or even 10 stop range is what's used to be able to slow the shutter enough to blur movement or use a really large aperture in full daylight. A common use is making flowing water or surf look "creamy". Another is a shallow depth of field portrait. Both these can be hard to achieve in bright light when a digital camera's lowest ISO is 100 (typically). A moderately strong ND filter simply shifts the exposure range enough that you can now utilize these effects at ISO 100. (Weaker ND filters are more often used for videography, where you have less shutter speed variation to work with, so may need to fine tune exposure with filters.)

Also, if you have a C-Pol, that filter reduces the light reaching the sensor too... by roughly one to two stops depending upon how it's set. So if you had a 6-stop ND you could potentially add the C-Pol too, to boost that to 8 stops, if ever needed.

I DO NOT recommend variable NDs. Those are basically double C-Pols and the reasonably affordable ones give fairly bad results... they often cause an uneven effect and tend to add ugly color tints. There are better variables... such as Singh-Ray... but those are extremely expensive.

So, if you get any filters... I'd highly recommend the first one be a C-Pol. If you also want to experiment with "dragging the shutter" effects, make the other a 6- or 8-stop ND.

Instead of buying a lot of filters, buy high quality. That filter will have direct effect on your image quality every time the filter is used, so don't mess around with cheap, uncoated ones. I recommend B+W MRC or Kaësemann, Hoya HD or HD2, and similar from others (all manufacturers make various grades of filters at different price points). A quality, multi-coated 52mm C-Pol will cost $50 to $100. A 6-stop (1.8) B+W multi-coated (MRC) in 52mm size sells for under $70.

If you were thinking of Graduated ND filters, too, I'd recommend a 2-stop to start with and you should stay away from the round, screw-in type. Those force you to put the horizon the same place in every shot! Instead get the rectangular type of Grad ND that fits into a holder that attaches to the front of your lens. For lenses like yours, Cokin A or P size would work fine (and other manufacturers such as Lee make higher quality Grad NDs to fit the Cokin holders.) But, as noted above, you can actually do a better job balancing sky and foreground with post-processing, than with filters.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

A good polarizing filter - a must for 90%

Unless you are ready to shoot HDR, graduated neutral density soft filters step 1, 2, and 3 - for a high contrast. You can also combine them together for difficult light situations.

twowindsbear

What effect are you expecting from the ND filter?