Skip to Content

Filters & Hoods

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: Filters....or no filters (Nikon)

Unread post by Berkhead » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:32 pm

Switchback wrote:Maybe, but I do know I would've had to replace a lens had it not been for my UV... Accidents do happen, no matter how carefull you are. Is that "little" bit of softnes you speak of (which I don't see the difference of anyway...) worth R20k or more? :hmz: For my hard earned money, no it's not, but hey, maybe for someone else it's nothing to replace a lens... :whistle:

Accidents do happen and yes lenses are expensive. Personally that is why i insure them. As a beginner I was also taught to use UV filters for protection and all I can tell you is the day that i discarded them (including a R1500 Hoya Pro Filter) was the day my photography went to the next level.

John, no one is suggesting that you don't use polarising filters. Filters certainly have their place and using them creatively to enhance/alter light when you are after a certain effect is fine. I am merely arguing against using them purely as a protective mechanism with no thought for the effect they are having on the light. My 2c...use it don't use it. :?

User avatar
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Zululand

Re: Filters....or no filters (Nikon)

Unread post by Bennievis » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:39 pm

I was going to buy a polarising filter (this weekend in fact) solely to be used for lanscape photography in the desert, but after reading through this thread, I am having some doubts.
Why want to buy a filter? I think its just the thing to use to bring out the contrasting colours of the landscape and the sky. I have seen some photos where these filters were used and I became very excited. I took some photos of welwitchias and were very dissapointed, as the colours were nowhere close to what it really looked like (sun sun sun, nowhere to hide)
What do you think?
Thank you - B

User avatar
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:32 am
Location: Northwold with KTP on my mind...

Re: Filters....or no filters (Nikon)

Unread post by Switchback » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:54 am

Personally I have no issues with using Polarised filters for landscape photography. Also, if you don't have one and you are shooting in harsh light, tune down your Exposure Value a bit.
KNP: 14 June: Skukuza Camping
15 -21 June: Letaba Camping

User avatar
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1689
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Milano (Italy) - IT ALL STARTED WITH A FOOTSTEP!

Re: Filters....or no filters (Nikon)

Unread post by RUMURUTI » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:09 pm

Full agree with Switchback on this matter. I stopped using UV filters and exclusively use polarized filters on all my glass, including with my 300 mm f2.8. Takes a little getting used to but then really gives you some great satisfaction and great results.
I use a D80 and two D90's.
"You can leave Africa but Africa never leaves you"
Andy Benaglia

User avatar
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Polarize Filter in the KTP

Unread post by Joubie » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:22 am

I am going to KTP for a week in December and someone has suggested I use a polarize filter to help with the glare from the white sand. Would love to know if anybody else uses one and if it would really make a difference. On previous trips I just used a smaller aperture (F14 or F16) on very bright days.

User avatar
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14294
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Re: Polarize Filter in the KTP

Unread post by bert » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:38 am

I use them during harsh daylight.
polar filter does not only take a way the glare on the sand but also from the animals .
And also adds some colour
And landscaping

but important to use quality glass.
otherwise its just a layer and your image is not as sharp as expected

Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:30 pm
Location: A grey UK ! Longing to be in SA !

Re: Polarize Filter in the KTP

Unread post by EOS_User » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Another consideration is that it will lose you two stops of light; which could be critical for moving shots!

Polarizers can be great, specially for blue skies with white fluffy clouds; but in the parks, my starting point would be to do without! When time is critical it can be the difference between a great shot and a missed shot while you fiddle about with the filter; which will also require adjusting every time you re-position the lens...

Dialling in a smaller Av will reduce your Tv; which, again could be critical. Set the Tv & Av you want (for creative effect) and compensate with ISO. Most cameras today will go to ISO400 or 800 without any perceivable loss of IQ. Also, remember that the bright glare will almost certainly have your camera under-expose the shot, so meter off a neutral grey (the palm of your hand is a good starting point), or dial in some positive exposure compensation.


User avatar
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 10:22 am
Location: gauteng

Re: filters - High sunlight Which

Unread post by Mars » Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:29 pm

came across this, was so long ago lol. things like dropping iso, increasing shutter speed and underexposing before hand might also help for who ever reads this now and needs the same advise

User avatar
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:29 am
Location: Benoni, East Rand

Re: Landscape lens

Unread post by moobox » Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:09 am

Hello everyone. On this 100-400, will I need to put some or other protective filter on it? Someone told me that the glass is struggling already so why add to that. Then someone else said that a good quality filter is a good idea. So, please tell me. What do you do?

Cheers - Ed

User avatar
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Fourways, Johannesburg

Re: Landscape lens

Unread post by Scottm » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:20 am

I NEVER place any filters on any of my lenses UNLESS I am looking for a specific effect, such as a polarizing or ND filter. Most people believe that a UV filter will protect the front element, which may be true, but using a lens hood will provide more protection, should it ever be required, and it will not degrade your image in any way. Secondly, it is probably cheaper to have the manufacturer replace the front glass of most lenses than it is to purchase a UV filter of sufficient quality not to affect your images in any noticeable manner. Consider also that, if UV filters were always able to enhance image quality, manufacturers would automatically include them on every lens - there is a very good reason why they do not.

Use a filter for what it is designed to be used for (filter the light), and use the lens hood and lens cover for protection.
"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

User avatar
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:27 am
Location: Secunda

Re: Landscape lens

Unread post by MxM » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:48 pm

I was also told about using UV filters to protect lenses, but seriously, on the longer lenses, typically you are so far from a subject and so careful with the equipment (typically resting it on something too), a UV filter is unnecessary. Particularly the 100-400 in question does not work well with UV filters (even decent ones, not sure why) with significant IQ losses. However, I NEVER shoot without my hoods on, they protect really well against accidental bumps near the front glass and keep things like branches from scratching.

That said, my 100 macro and wide angles almost always have filters. I only take the UV off my macro if I am shooting from a tripod of something that will not move. I have not noticed signifiant IQ loss but do use a decent filter (not sure which but was ~1k 4 years ago for a 72 mm). My wide angle alsmost always has a CPL on, I like using it. I have little issue taking off the filter for protection, but like the CPL effect most of the time. That said, when shooting at the sea, particularly of the sea, I ALWAYS have a filter on and usually shroud my camera in a freezer bag closed with some masking tape - the filter seals the front to protect against wind, sand, spray and salt - best is, it is easy to take the filter off later and wash that; if it gets scratched, easy to replace rather than getting a new or fixing the lens.

In terms of lenses to buy, I have the Sigma EFS 10-20, it is nice, but not that sharp towards the corners, but is really nice and wide - actual 10 mm on a crop body, like the 70D. However, now that I also shoot full frame, I need a different lens, which is annoying (but at least that justifies getting the new 16-35 f4). The point is, think whether you may go FF or not - if so, rather get a good EF lens; if crop will be the way you prefer, consider the EFS lenses as they offer greater wideness.
Moments by Mullineux Photography
Photographer, nature lover, birder

Follow my solo KTP photographic and birding TRAVEL TALE

Photograph all moments of beauty not to forget, but treasure them in your heart to remember

Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Webcam Highlights

Submitted by Foxy at 21:59:26
Submitted by ao4 at 19:22:40
Submitted by Karin Mitton at 07:34:04
Submitted by Karin Mitton at 21:28:07