Bushwalk Australia

Have just purchased a tokina 12-28 f4 for a dx Nikon. Looking to do more landscapes. What filters do people recommend (or are the unnecessary these days).

A good quality UV filter is all you need and maybe a circular polarizing filter.

ULWalkingPhil wrote:A good quality UV filter is all you need and maybe a circular polarizing filter.

Agreed, you just beat me to it! The UV filter for protecting the lens if nothing else.
Just be aware that a polarizing filter will probably show unevenness in a blue sky with such a wide angle lens - some areas of sky will be darker than others. The wider, the more variation you will probably see. But you'll see this when you chimp, I imagine. Some people don't mind this - I don't either!

Great Lens i'd say. My 11-16 was a dream, never had a nikkor w/a zoom but Tokina couldn't fault. Good value as well.
It would vignette badly with standard filters, the bofans recommend Nikons thin P/L.
Fast forward to a thought bubble from a recent thread, I too seem to have ended up with the 12-28 last week.
I'm trying to work through new software and Live View/EVF etc. It's got a Hoya polariser and doesn't appear to vignette at all...
May be a few days before I can make sure in the processed image (load the software/images) (eyes aren't the best with small screens) but so far it appears any filter might be ok.

With the 11-16 i'd just leave the P/L on unless too wide, not needed or too patchy, take it off for those otherwise would stay on the lens. Probably do the same with this one.

Happy Snapping ; )

You definitely don't need a UV filter. The UV part isn't required on digital and as for protection, I've never used protective filters on any of my lenses and have never scratched a front element. Your miles may vary...

The polariserr is a good idea and can make a huge difference for landscape work. As people have said though, expect some odd effects at the wider end of your zoom range.

A neutral density filter would also be very useful if you have a tripod and want to do some daytime long exposures (for instance, smoothing moving water).

Every quality filter brand makes slim filters to avoid vignetting on ultra-wides.

And finally, keep it clean!

If it comes to thinking about the other end beardless, I tried a friends Kenko AF Teleconvertor, everything seems to function fine.

Is the statement below a true statement?

"In the digital world with RAW and Photoshop, colour filters are no longer of relevance in the field."

As much as I understand, hopefully more this week than last, about the only thing that can't be done in processing is to bring back detail lost in reflections
(which is why a polariser is still relevant)

?

GPSGuided wrote:Is the statement below a true statement?

"In the digital world with RAW and Photoshop, colour filters are no longer of relevance in the field."

Basically. As nuts mentioned above, polarising is one of the only filter-related things that simply cannot be replicated in photoshop.

Adding to my previous reply, if you do want to get into the world of long-exposures, avoid stopping your lenses aperture down too far (say numbers bigger than f11). On todays pixel-dense digital sensors diffraction - causing visible softness - is a significant issue...

To clarify, when I said "colour filter", I referred to those tinted colour filters, including graduated and temp correction filters. Polariser excluded.

Now, was that a true or false statement?

nickthetasmaniac wrote:

GPSGuided wrote:Is the statement below a true statement?

"In the digital world with RAW and Photoshop, colour filters are no longer of relevance in the field."

Basically. As nuts mentioned above, polarising is one of the only filter-related things that simply cannot be replicated in photoshop.

Adding to my previous reply, if you do want to get into the world of long-exposures, avoid stopping your lenses aperture down too far (say numbers bigger than f11). On todays pixel-dense digital sensors diffraction - causing visible softness - is a significant issue...

Do you suggest neutral filters or decreased ISO instead?

GPSGuided wrote:To clarify, when I said "colour filter", I referred to those tinted colour filters, including graduated and temp correction filters. Polariser excluded.

Now, was that a true or false statement?

Yes, everything that colour filters do can be replicated in Photoshop. The effect of grad filters can also be replicated in photoshop by digitally stacking multiple images with different exposures - i.e.. -1ev, 0ev, +1ev, although this is a bit more fiddly and generally requires a tripod at the time of exposure to do well. That said, modern digital sensors have much more dynamic range that slide film so it just isn't as much of an issue as it was.

icefest wrote:Do you suggest neutral filters or decreased ISO instead?

Both, simply because ISO only goes so low (beware of 'extended' iso-ranges available on most modern cameras - it's a digital pull/push and will kill dynamic range and create unwanted noise). For instance, if you're shooting a waterfall, you are going to want the minimum possible ISO (either 100 or 200 depending on the camera) and an aperture which gives the best balance of depth of field and sharpness (around f8 on Micro Four Thirds, which is what I shoot). However, 200iso and f8 in daylight aren't going to allow a slow enough shutter speed to clue water, hence the usefulness of ND filters.

Thanks for the explanation.
I didn't realise that it could be that much of an issue, sure I know about diffraction but didn't realise we made sensors that small.

Anyway, for any others still interested in the topic, here is a nifty page that calculate when your camera gets diffraction limited.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

+1

icefest wrote:Thanks for the explanation.
I didn't realise that it could be that much of an issue, sure I know about diffraction but didn't realise we made sensors that small.

Not so much that sensors are 'that small', just that we're packing a huge number of pixels onto them... The Kodak DCS500 had 2 million pixels in 1999, the current Nikon D800 has 36 million... It's pixel density, not sensor size, that is the issue with diffraction.

The filters you carry with you depends on the style of photography you want to do. A Circular polarising filter (make sure you get one suitable for digital sensors) - can be used to reduce reflection from water, wet leaves etc, but should be used sparingly - as you can over saturate your image. A neutral density filter is useful for taking long exposure shots of waterfalls, creeks etc. Some cameras have these built in. A variable ND filter can be useful in a range of conditions - but they tend to be thicker and can cause vignetting. Graduated ND filters came in a variety of types - screw in or rectangular ones that need a special holder and hard or soft transitions. These filters are very useful for landscape work - a good example where they are useful is when shooting clouds and a landscape. A normal exposure for the landscape will result in the clouds being washed out. To some extent you can correct the sky using post processing software - but it is preferable to get it right with the camera. With all ND filters it is necessary to spend $$$ for good ones. Cheap ones can have a tendency to leave a colour cast on your photo.

One more consideration is the size of the filter. Buy ones for your largest lens - and then you can also use them for smaller lenses with step down rings.

Dave

Thank you very very much for all the tips everyone.

DaveNoble wrote:The filters you carry with you depends on the style of photography you want to do. A Circular polarising filter (make sure you get one suitable for digital sensors) - can be used to reduce reflection from water, wet leaves etc, but should be used sparingly - as you can over saturate your image. A neutral density filter is useful for taking long exposure shots of waterfalls, creeks etc. Some cameras have these built in. A variable ND filter can be useful in a range of conditions - but they tend to be thicker and can cause vignetting. Graduated ND filters came in a variety of types - screw in or rectangular ones that need a special holder and hard or soft transitions. These filters are very useful for landscape work - a good example where they are useful is when shooting clouds and a landscape. A normal exposure for the landscape will result in the clouds being washed out. To some extent you can correct the sky using post processing software - but it is preferable to get it right with the camera. With all ND filters it is necessary to spend $$$ for good ones. Cheap ones can have a tendency to leave a colour cast on your photo.

One more consideration is the size of the filter. Buy ones for your largest lens - and then you can also use them for smaller lenses with step down rings.

Dave

Good info. there. The only addition I suggest is a warm circular polariser. Saves having two filters on and the sum seems more than the total of the parts in this case. Mine is invaluable and, like you, I try to get it right incamera!

Personally, I think UV filters are a waste of time. A good lens hood is far more important. Don't let the friendly camera shop people try and sell you useless bits of gear.

I don't normally take many landscape shots, but for me the only filters I would want are a circular polarizer (warm too), a few ND filters and graduated ND filters with soft and hard edges. Though, as someone above mentioned, HDR images (stacking differently exposed images) in software like Photoshop, Photomatix or similar will yield as good results. I tend to HDR it as I carry a lot of non-landscape camera gear with me so don't need extra weight with grad filters and filter holders. It all adds up.