Screw on filter size for multiple lenses

[William W]

. . . Recently picked up a Nikon D5600 and now have a several lenses with filter sizes of 52, 55, 58 and 67mm.
Q1. > What Filters are you look at using? (“I don’t know”, is a reasonable answer)
Polarizer, ND (solid vs variable?).
Q2. > Are you a “Protection Filter” advocate?
Not really. I normally have a lens hood on, but that may or may not change if I get into using step-up rings. Or I'll have to get a different style of hood.

These two answers are related and important. I think it is likely that if you are able to use a Lens Hood you’ll be unlikely to run out and buy a UV or Protection Filter for each of your lenses. IME people either do or do not and seldom change on this point. Also I’ll mention another point (below) as to why I think you will not change your mind on this matter.

The two filters nominated are specialty filters and in the course of a years’ shooting it is unlikely that the filters will remain on any lens for more than a few hours at each specialty use – this is important acknowledgement as we address other points, below.

As an initial strategy I suggest that you make an informed guess as to what lens(es) are more likely to utilize the ND and the PL / CPL Filters.

Some guidelines would be:
> PL / CPL will have limited uses for lenses with a FoV wider than 35mm on “Full Frame”. This is because the likelihood of Blue Banding is increased when a PC / CPL is used on wide FoV lenses.

> ND Filters (generally) get used on normal to wider lenses, rather than normal to telephoto lenses.

You might like to discuss what lenses you have and the filter size for each and we could get into more detail, however, as a general guide, I’d suggest that the “best option” is NOT necessarily to get a step up rings to fit a 67mm filter, or a 72mm filter if the lens(es) that are most likely to use those filters have a 58mm or 55mm thread.

The main reason is, you’ve got to fork out the money for a 67mm or 72mm CPL and ND (or two or three NDs) and the bigger the filter size the more expensive the exercise.

So I think the next step is to look at the lenses you have; identify what lenses that you think you’ll use the most with ND and CPL and base the main part of your choice on that.

The point is, you don’t know for certain how this journey will progress and whilst we might like to think that we will use these purchases often, often we don’t. It is often false economy to think that the better options is the one which provides the most flexibility.

As a practical example, I know that having purchased most of my gear as ‘business purchases’, the predominate factor always had to be ROI return on investment. As one example, there are many MANY “Wedding and Portrait Professionals” who make an absolute that a 70 to 200/2.8 is a “must have”. But when taken to task to identify how many sales there were by using that lens, where another lens definitely could NOT be used, that number was in the low single percentages of every Wedding Package; and usually it was only ever the “long shots from the back of the church” – which could easily be made with a 135/2 or 135/2.8 and a small crop in Post Production. The point is a 70 to 200/2.8 is about 5 times more expense than a 135/2.8.

You will know more about how often you use these Filters once you get them and begin using them.

***

Q3. > What is the general climate where you live?
I live in British Columbia, so hot summers and potentially cold winters.

Goes to the question of filters and step up rings “binding”.

The major point here is that the intention is that the filters and rings will NOT be on the lens or other rings for a long period of time.

I think the binding issue is overplayed. I have quite a few sets of rings, it is because that they are so INFREQUENTLY used they never bind up.

I have never had a CPL or ND bind on a lens either – simply because it is only on for a couple of hours – and I regularly use the NDs at the beach, where there is humidity and salt water.

***

Q4. > What type of Photography do you like doing?
Pretty general really, indoor and outdoor, some macro, landscape, sports.

Seems that “Landscapes” will be the main use for both ND and CPL, maybe the odd occasion “Sports” for CPL; maybe also Macro on the odd occasion for CPL.

As this is the case – we now look at what lenses your likely to use for “landscapes” and what Filter sizes those lenses have and refer to the points above.

The point is even if you buy new lenses with a 72mm thread, it’s likely you still use the lens with a 67mm thread.

***

Q5. > What are the “future lens purchases” that you have on the table at the moment?
Nothing planned but like every other hobby, there will be future purchases!

I think we put that in the “I don’t know” bucket and therefore we do not use it as a basis for any of the choices we make now.

***

In summary, what to do:

I think that IF your 67mm Lens is likely to be the “often used” lens with the ND and CPL Filters – this is the size of Filters that you buy now.

If you buy 67mm Filters - then you might as well buy some Step Up Rings as well because they are a cheap as chips. I have never bought brass rings, for the reason I outlined.

I think that future lens purchases are not a relevant consideration at this time.

I think it is important to buy quality Filters, the main ingredients for CPL and ND is that they are SLIM Profile, have FRONT threads and have high quality optical glass.

Personally I don’t like Variable NDs, mainly because they do not reflect ROI for me: If I were a passionate Landscape Photographer (amateur or professional – it matters not) I would probably use a Variable ND, but for my spasmodic use, a few NDs is fine.

I do like my ND1000 (about 8 Stops) I use it the most often.

I think that a “Set” of quality ND Filters comprising: 3 Stops; 5 Stops and 8 or 10 Stops is more than adequate for a lifetime of general high quality Photography.

***

ON the other hand -

IF you think that the most often used lens for the ND and CPL is one of the SMALLER Filter Sizes, then beware of buying a set of 67mm Filters and plan on using Step Up Rings - especially because you need to calculate the issue of OPTICAL VIGNETTING, especially if that lens is a towards the wider FoV.

WW

[rpcrowe]

An old lens with a unique twist... I have just received a vintage Meyer Gorlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8 M-42 mount manual focus lens.

The Lens has a 52mm filter thread and accepts a screw-in lens hood that has a 55mm female thread in the front. Almost like having a built-in step up ring. Except that with the 55mm filter being about an inch and a half in front of the lens front element, the image quality might be flawed as a result. At the least, every bit of dirt, dust or finger print will impact the IQ far more than a filter mounted quite close to the lens.

A filter mounted behind the lens would impact the Image Quality the least. Some modern lenses that have very large size front elements have a way to insert a smaller filter behind the lens.

Using my 16mm Bell and Howell Filmo motion picture camera, I would cut a circular piece of 85 color correction gel and fasten it behind the lens. The IQ never suffered.

[Scott S]

Many thanks to you all for great ideas and suggestions. I believe I will stick with 67mm filter size for now, use step up rings if needed.

And a follow-up question. Which brand screw on polarizer and ND filters would you suggest? I want buy decent quality, and there's many choices. After a fair bit of reading, I'm starting to lean towards the B+W brand. I came across this review on the Fstoppers website on the polarizer:

https://fstoppers.com/originals/fsto...zer-mrc-197923

It gives a good review, except for the fact that the rotating ring is quite stiff and awkward to use. In reading other reviews on the B&H website, a few people made the same comment.

Anybody out there have experience with the B+W polarizer? Or other suggestions about good quality polarizers (and ND filters)?

Thanks again!

[DanK]

There are any number of good brands, but the ranking of quality isn't entirely consistent--the company that produces the best of one type isn't necessarily the one that is best for another type. However, with the exception of NDs, the differences among better brands are in my experience minor. However, make sure you are buying multicoated filters, to reduce glare. Some companies produce several levels, some of which are not multicoated.

If you want to be picky, lenstip.com has excellent reviews of some filters.

A basic decision is whether you want to pay the extra for brass rather than aluminum. Brass is less prone to binding, but I have had very good luck with aluminum, as long as I don't over tighten, and I have always been able to remove the filters that were initially stuck.

My default, when I don't have reason to do something different, is Marumi. They are a bit harder to find (I get mine mostly from http://www.2filter.com/), but they are high quality (check out lenstip.com) and usually a bit cheaper than comparable brands. I have had a lot of Hoyas, which are fine, although some are hard to clean. I have one or two B+W.

NDs are a problem, because many of them have a distinct color cast that I find hard to remove. Moreover, in my limited experience, some of the "best" brands have problematic color casts. Currently, I have two Marumis of different density, and my tests show them to be very close to neutral. I also have a 10-stop Hoya Pro that is neutral but that has been criticized for not being as sharp as some. Just check into this issue before you buy.

I am one of the people who does by default use protective filters. I have one on every lens, which I remove only when there is a reason to (e.g., night photography, when there are lights in front of the lens). Most people use UV filters for this, but there is no reason to, as UV is not a problem with digital photography. So, I now mostly by coated neutral filters, which are cheaper than UV.

[royent]

Scott S It would help members if we had some idea of where you live
Roy

[William W]

. . . Which brand screw on polarizer and ND filters would you suggest? I want buy decent quality, and there's many choices. . .

My ND's and PL's and CPLS's are nearly all Hoya; most are their "Pro" or similar being most expensive Series. I have had most of mine for a long time. I think there is yet another 'improved' version/series to their "Pro" Series. As I mentioned, I believe Slim Profile is important.

I would not necessarily direct you away from B+W, I have some B+W Filters (not any ND or CPL or PL) and I have no problem with B+W.

As per Dan's comment, I have never had a problem with Aluminium and like Dan, I leave a 'protection' filter on all my lenses.

I concur with Dan's advice re Colour Casts and ND Filters

WW

[William W]

Scott S It would help members if we had some idea of where you live
Roy

"I live in British Columbia, so hot summers and potentially cold winters." [Post #11]

WW

[Scott S]

Many thanks to all of you for your input. Of course there isn't one right answer, but you've given me great suggestions.

[odds]

...have used Nikon for over 30 years, I know of no Nikkor lens that uses a screw on mount.

You're far too young my friend

Look up those Nikon HN-<number-here> hoods, try HN-1, HN-2, HN-3,...HN-30, HN-31,... (sample link for the HN-31 here: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...lens-hood.html )

--
Odd S.

[george013]

You're far too young my friend

Look up those Nikon HN-<number-here> hoods, try HN-1, HN-2, HN-3,...HN-30, HN-31,... (sample link for the HN-31 here: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...lens-hood.html )

--
Odd S.

I'm excused. I only shoot Nikon for 11 years
I did count on your link snap-on, slip-on, screw-on,bayonet and then I stopped. All for specific lenses,focal length or aov.
Just looking further, that specific shaped lens hood is only bayonet. As far I could see. If you put it on the lens the top must be the top, it has to follow the shape of the sensor.
If you play a lot with variable nd or pl filters a screw-on might be of a value like Richard said. The very view times I played with them it has been a struggle always.

George

[Polar01]

I stand corrected, I actually have two of the lens that could use the screw on hood, those hoods were sold separately not with the lens itself.

Cheers: Allan

[odds]

...I did count on your link snap-on, slip-on, screw-on,bayonet and then I stopped

Sounds like your browser took you to visit the wrong web page. The HN-31 is for the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D. The web page I linked to only shows the HN-31 and it says "Optional screw-in lens hood for select NIKKOR lenses."

I have quite a few NH- lens hoods for various Nikkors. I believe the HN-30 (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...lens-hood.html ) is my most expensive one. My bayonet mount Nikkor hoods appear to be HB-<number here>.

--
Odd S.

[Scott S]

My ND's and PL's and CPLS's are nearly all Hoya; most are their "Pro" or similar being most expensive Series. I have had most of mine for a long time. I think there is yet another 'improved' version/series to their "Pro" Series. As I mentioned, I believe Slim Profile is important.

I'm rereading this thread and Bill you mentioned twice that a SLIM profile is important. Is the main reason for this to reduce vignetting at wide angles? Other reasons?

I do agree that front threads on the filter are important for either stacking a second filter and/or possibly threading on a different lens hood in the case where the standard hood doesn't work because of the filters.

[george013]

Sounds like your browser took you to visit the wrong web page. The HN-31 is for the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D. The web page I linked to only shows the HN-31 and it says "Optional screw-in lens hood for select NIKKOR lenses."

I have quite a few NH- lens hoods for various Nikkors. I believe the HN-30 (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...lens-hood.html ) is my most expensive one. My bayonet mount Nikkor hoods appear to be HB-<number here>.

--
Odd S.

Not the browser but myself. Write 'lens hood' int he search field and you get them all. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/about-ni...facet=Overview
HB bayonet
HN screw-in
HS snap on
HK I don't know.

Off topic. The end of this week I'm in Tromso, trying to shoot the northern light. I don't think we will be lucky.

George

[rpcrowe]

Actually virtually any lens that has a filter thread can use a screw in hood. However, with shorter focal length lenses, especially when using a full frame camera, some round screw-in hoods may vignette.

I do have some screw-in butterfly-type hoods that can be used on wider lenses. I have a screw-in hood which works just great on some of my Canon lenses.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/58MM-Lens-H...AAAOSw4AJcW3Dv

The ring that screws into the lens and the hood itself are two pieces. You can screw the hood into the filter threads of the lens and then rotate the hood itself until it is in the correct alignment with lens. That being with the two shorter "wings" of the butterfly at the sides of the frame and the longer "wings" at the top and the bottom.

I have a few OEM hoods for various lenses but, I have never purchased an OEM hood either for a lens that did not come with a hood (Canon non-L lenses especially) or for hoods that have been lost or broken. I always purchase Chinese hoods from eBay for a few dollars each and have never been disappointed.

After all, when you buy an OEM hood, you are paying for the name! Manufacturing a hood is not rocket science...

[xpatUSA]

Actually virtually any lens that has a filter thread can use a screw in hood. However, with shorter focal length lenses, especially when using a full frame camera, some round screw-in hoods may vignette.

Good point. My Sigma 8-16mm (APS-C) comes with a round push-on hood and vignettes badly at 8mm unless the hood is pulled off.

Catches me out almost every time ...

[Scott S]

Thanks Ted and Richard. Good info on screw on lens hoods.

I'd still like anyone's thoughts on slim vs regular thickness filters (CPL, ND, etc). Slim are more expensive and I've read some reviews where they are more awkward to put on/take off, and more difficult to turn the ring on a polarizer. What are your experiences? Is it worth the extra cost? Benefits?

Thanks.

[William W]

. . . At the moment I have several Nikon lenses with the normal bayonet style lens hoods. You mentioned using screw in lens hoods in the right thread size, which obviously gets around the problem of the filter preventing the normal hood from being used. I haven't checked yet, but Nikon perhaps sells screw on hoods (pricey??) vs third party hoods on B&H, Ebay or Amazon? Any recommendations there? . . .

I missed reading this earlier.

When I mentioned using screw in Lens Hoods, I anticipated that these would need to be third party; additionally, if you use Step Up Rings, you need to calculate or guesstimate what Lens Hood would be the best to use so that it is an effective stray light barrier, but does not cause an optical vignette.

If you can get the dimensions of the hood you intend to buy, you can make a life size drawing (elevation) of it and compare that to the elevation view of the original Lens Hood that is made to suit the Lens without Step Up Rings.

The off market brad that I use is "KALT". They make a range of Metal Lens Hoods. I also use have used "Sensei", this company also makes good quality snap on Lens Caps.

WW

[William W]

... I'd still like anyone's thoughts on slim vs regular thickness filters (CPL, ND, etc). Slim are more expensive and I've read some reviews where they are more awkward to put on/take off, and more difficult to turn the ring on a polarizer. What are your experiences? Is it worth the extra cost? Benefits?

If the possibility is that I would use the filter on a W/A Lens, or there is the chance that two filters will be stacked, then it is Slim Profile always. For me the extra cost is worth it.

WW

[odds]

Actually virtually any lens that has a filter thread can use a screw in hood.

Some zoom lens designs may require an arsenal of screw in hoods to replace an original hood attached to the outer lens barrel. If zooming shifts the lens front and filter threads inside the fixed hood, the effective lens hood depth also changes to compensate the changing angle of view. Not so for a screw in hood.

--
Odd S.