Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-30-2013, 10:27 AM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 887
Filters -- any of these worth a bean?

I have a bunch of filters from camera purchases in the past, and I'm curious if any of these are worth keeping and using. Here's the list:

49mm:
Hoya UV(0)
Osawa 82A
Kenko CPL
Crystal Optics Redhancer

52mm:
Marumi UV Haze
Hoya +1
Hoya +2
Hoya +4
Toyo Optics UV
Hoya CS
Crystal Optics Redhancer
Tiffen Diffusion #1
Sunpak CPL
Tiffen 80A

55mm
Fotodiox CPL

58mm:
Merkury Optics UV
Merkury Optics FD
Merkury Optics CPL
Sunpak Redhancer

67mm
Bower CPL

72mm
Bower CPL

Thanks!

Charles.

12-30-2013, 10:43 AM   #2
Site Supporter
rbefly's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,030
Filtering Process?

Hi Charles,
Honestly, not much there I'd keep. Normally, the only filters used for DSLR photography are CPL's and ND's (neutral density), but the CPL's you've listed aren't in the top 2 or 3 brands I've used and/heard of, namely B + W and Marumi. You might hang onto the CPL's you have (that fit your lenses) until you find an upgrade. I have used UV/Skylight filters for really bad weather, water, sand or dusty conditions. It seems better to suffer a bit of contrast loss, then be wiping the front element of my lens when it's constantly getting exposed to the elements. I've saved good quality 49m and 52mm UV's for just this purpose, but hardly ever use them. A lens hood does the job much better.
Everything the other filters offer can be done as well with in-camera processing or post processing. The diffusion can (in addition to softening the overall image) add a slightly better 'starburst' effect to light sources, if you like that look. The rest? Toss' em.
JMO,
Ron
12-30-2013, 10:45 AM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,134
The UV filters are useful only to those who still believe in "protecting" their lens' front elements while adding possibilities for flare. The CPLs might be useful, depending on their quality. Film users might find a use for the 82A and FD. I have never heard of "redhancer" filters. Any idea what effect they might have on things?
12-31-2013, 05:32 AM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by rbefly Quote
Honestly, not much there I'd keep. Normally, the only filters used for DSLR photography are CPL's and ND's (neutral density), but the CPL's you've listed aren't in the top 2 or 3 brands I've used and/heard of, namely B + W and Marumi. You might hang onto the CPL's you have (that fit your lenses) until you find an upgrade.
What Ron said.

12-31-2013, 10:29 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,848
The + diopter filters are a very cheap way to carry a once a year close-up capability in lieu of an expensive macro lens you may not use enough to justify the cost or space.

You can easily remove the glass from many filters keeping only the empty rings which may be stacked to make custom hoods or, with the help of a little epoxy, combined in many combinations to build step adapters. Glued back-to-back they become a DIY stacked lens adapter for a 'real' macro capability using two mid-range primes.

With a little ingenuity, there's endless uses for de-glassed filter rings.
12-31-2013, 11:11 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 887
Original Poster
I have the Promaster equivalent of the FA 100mm f3.5 Macro, with the matched macro adapter (which is much higher quality, thicker glass, and precision-made) than the little diopters in this lot.

I like the look the redhancers give, and I suppose I could do much of that in post, but maybe post skills are lacking, because the filter seems to give a much more natural look than anything I've tried by adjusting the red channel saturation.

Polarizers will remain to be seen. I've had trouble with cheap polarizers on on my 55-300 -- not sure if AF wasn't locking properly or what, but everything came out just a little blurred and ugly. That being said, I haven't been able to see any degredation from the 67mm bower filter -- but granted, I was using a 28-200 that's not the highest quality lens. I will have to wait for my Tamron 28-75 to get back from servicing before I can test it more thoroughly. The 72 I will try on my Bower 85mm (it came with it, package deal). hopefully it's not too bad.

Charles.
12-31-2013, 01:16 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
TedH42's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 470
QuoteOriginally posted by ChopperCharles Quote
I like the look the redhancers give, and I suppose I could do much of that in post, but maybe post skills are lacking, because the filter seems to give a much more natural look than anything I've tried by adjusting the red channel saturation.
The "redhancers" sound like the old "enhancing" filters of the film era. They use rare earth elements, such as neodymium, to selectively block/reduce certain wavelengths of light, in this case the red/orange range. This results in rendering the selected range in deeper, richer levels. These filters are terrific for autumn colors. Vat-dyed glass filters, as used for B&W film, which each affect a much broader range of colors, cannot match this result. Nor can hacking the red channel, which is applying a sledgehammer by comparison. For me, other PP doesn't really give the more natural quality that the enhancing filter gives.

Other than a polarizer and neutral density (graduated and uniform) filters, enhancing filters are the only useful image-modifying filters of the film era that I still use.

I'd keep them.
12-31-2013, 01:40 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Durham, nc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 887
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TedH42 Quote
The "redhancers" sound like the old "enhancing" filters of the film era. They use rare earth elements, such as neodymium, to selectively block/reduce certain wavelengths of light, in this case the red/orange range. This results in rendering the selected range in deeper, richer levels. These filters are terrific for autumn colors. Vat-dyed glass filters, as used for B&W film, which each affect a much broader range of colors, cannot match this result. Nor can hacking the red channel, which is applying a sledgehammer by comparison. For me, other PP doesn't really give the more natural quality that the enhancing filter gives.

Other than a polarizer and neutral density (graduated and uniform) filters, enhancing filters are the only useful image-modifying filters of the film era that I still use.

I'd keep them.
Cool. I need to experiment more with the redhancers.

Charles.

12-31-2013, 10:04 PM   #9
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
I knock the glass out of old filters and install the ring in between the lens and the hood. It's a way to push the hood out further to make it deeper. Our APS sized sensors crop out the vignetting that a FF sensor would otherwise see from a hood that is apparently too deep. A deeper hood could help improve contrast and IQ.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bower, cpl, filters, hoya, k-mount, optics, pentax lens, slr lens, sunpak, tiffen, uv
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are Any Filters Worth It? If So, Which Do You Recommend? reivax Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 23 02-12-2013 06:09 PM
Any of these lenses worth converting to K mount? cyclone3d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-12-2010 01:55 PM
Any of these worth getting? Compatible with K-x? CrossStealth Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 02-14-2010 07:58 AM
Are any of these lenses worth buying? CrossStealth Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-11-2010 12:50 PM
Any of these worth the drive? chlen Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 12-12-2008 01:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top