100mm glass filter system, is it worth it?

sirch

sirch

Lu-Tze
Admin
Messages
104,543
Name
The other Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been considering getting a glass filter system for a while and given that I have a 16-35 it is tempting to get a 100mm system but I am really hung up on firstly the price and then which one to get, Nisi, Lee, Firecrest, something else? It looks like a holder, CPL plus a couple of filters is going to cost getting on for £400 which seems like a lot of money for what you get compared to a lens or camera body. I know the measurements indicate that glass is better than resin but in the real world, by the time a photo is processed and rendered to jpeg or printed is there a significant difference? Would I win a prize with a photo taken with a glass filter but not if the same shot used a resin filter? (not that I enter competitions anyway...).

Then which system? I like the fact that Nisi put the CPL in the body of the holder close to the lens but then Nisi don't seem to have much of an official presence, at least in the UK. I have also read that the Nisi holder is quite narrow and hard to use with other thicker filters.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Talk me down from the ledge?
 
While I do not doubt the quality of Nisi, Lee etc, I could never justify the cost of them. OK, glass will, in theory, be optically superior to resin and resin can scratch easily. However, glass breaks even easier and I have seen many YouTube videos from landscape photographers where they have accidentally broken their ND filters at around £100 each! The Cokin system has been about for many years using high grade resin and people seemed to get on with it even if the odd scratch meant eventual replacement at far less than £100 and rarely catastrophic like a smashed glass filter. Call me an old grump but I often wonder if these filter systems like Lee have become the 'must have' simply because certain bloggers say they are so great, even essential for landscape. It would be even cynical of me to point out that some of these bloggers were given the systems to 'review'.

Yes, the quality is there as is the engineering but are they worth it? I don't think so personally but then again, I could never justify the cost. Just my personal opinion.
 
I'm now bought into the Lee 100mm system. When I first looked the others were nowhere near the Lee quality, suspect that may have changed now though. If you are careful with the resin filters then they perform well, but they scratch easily. The glass ones are more robust in this way, but don't drop them!!!

There are three types of polariser in the Lee range, two of which are square! (one is a liner polariser the other a circular polariser - and yes they are square in shape). They have two versions of the round polariser (both circular), one being thinner than the other and is called the landscape polariser, basically allows use of wide angle lenses without noticeable vignetting. It also gives a slightly warmer cast than the other one and is cheaper too @ £160 vs £215. You will need a foundation kit no matter what (about £58) and if you want to use the round polariser an additional adapter (£33 ish) ... I use the round 105 polariser a lot btw (but not to make skies blue ;)) ... and I perfer the pro glass nd filters too. fwiw I think all the grads are resin ....
 
You don't say why you want a filter system in the first place, which is an increasingly valid question these days, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with top quality resin filters. Glass can be just as prone to quality issues and indeed the worst filter I've ever tested was a made from the fabled Schott glass (meaningless marketing term).

If best optical quality is important, then screw-ins are better, if only because they're multi-coated. That can make a significant difference shooting into the light, especially as you can keep the standard lens hood in place.
 
Yes very worthwhile to have for landscape photography IMO

I use the Firecrest ND grads and can recommend them
 
Thanks for all the replies.

@GrahamT - good point about dropping them, I don't recall ever dropping one of my resin ones but sods law says I will drop an expensive glass one. And fair point about the marketing hype around these things, I too wonder if they are just a bit jewellery.

@PaulButler - thanks for the info on the Lee polarisers, it all seems to be getting a bit expensive with all those adaptors, etc. The Nisi holder kit comes with a CPL included for around £130

@HoppyUK - I use them for landscapes, both sun/sky and long exposure. I know about improved dynamic range on modern cameras and about exposure blending but sometimes a grad is easier or even essential if there is movement in the foreground. Besides, my PP skills aren't that good and I don't have much desire to improve on that front so getting it better in-camera interests me more. Screw-in NDs are an option and i have a couple but of course you really need one for each lens size as opposed to an adaptor ring

@GreenNinja67 - thanks, does Firecrest have a CPL as part of the system or do you use a separate one.
 
Yep, the Lee system gets expensive for sure. One of the problems with screw in filters (other than different filter sizes) is that they can soon vignette if stacked, and tweaking a polariser with an nd on top needs a level of dexterity I just don't have ;) Heard good things about the firecrest filters.
 
I tend to use a 10 stop for long exposure and a CPL, cant see the point in grads these days. I'm at a loss as to why folks spend as much as they do on various systems. I use a hoya 77mm PRO ND1000 ten stop and a hoya pro digital circular polariser and they are both excellent. Both together cost about £100. I travel too much to chuff about taking another bag with all the holders, adaptors and other gubins required with the slot in systems.
 
Thanks again for the replies. Still sitting on the fence on this one :thinking:
 
sirch said:
Thanks again for the replies. Still sitting on the fence on this one :thinking:
Click to expand...
Shame you are not down my neck of the woods (or me up your way ... o_O ) - you could have used my filters and see how you get on. fwiw I've not regretted getting them.
 
I bought the Firecrest filters which aren't cheap, and have read bad things about them since. I haven't managed to get out and use them as much as I should.

The main issues being reflections, usually when the sun is in frame. I've read some suggestions they don't have anti-reflection coating on the outside, only the bit sandwiched in the middle. I've read a suggestion this issue can be corrected by using a system that has a polariser behind the filter, which makes sense. Though I found the Firecrest holder too fiddly and ended up getting the Lee one which I find much easier to use.

Also this review on Amazon with what purports to be an email from Hitech highlighting a limitation of the 2mm Firecrest filters.

I bought the firecrest ND filters in 6, 10, and 16 stop. the 6 and the 16 stop filters are ok until 150-180mm lens, the 10 stop is ok until 50-60mm lens, after is unusable. On my 400mm APO lens all the three are totally unusable. Of course i used them manually focusing first and then putting the filters on the lens, and i shoot many pictures at different apertures with precise prefocusing. That's a pity because all of them are very neutral, so i should decide if send them back or keep them and use only on wide-angle lens. Anyway i'll send back the 10 mm for a replacement.
After i contacted Formatt hitech, after talking for a while this was the answer:

Dear Luciano,
Now this issue we are aware of! You cannot use the 2mm filter with a telephoto lens. It’s been tested that the 2mm is ok up to about 150mm but not higher. For telephoto lens, we would advise using the 4mm version filters. This is because, the 4mm are highly polished (hence the cost also) and will not cause any distortion on films and on telephoto. However, the 2mm filter are not that flat for these type of photography.

I am very sorry about this. This explains why on wide angle lens you do not get any issues.
I suggested them to declare that limitation on their website, we will see. So, without this problem i would assign five star, bt i was really disappointed when trying the filters on my lens.
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/custome...f=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00LMY52H4
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
If best optical quality is important, then screw-ins are better, if only because they're multi-coated. That can make a significant difference shooting into the light, especially as you can keep the standard lens hood in place.
Click to expand...
There are some multicoated 100mm filters (e.g. Nisi), but I don't think Lee are, which does seem like a big minus. I wouldn't buy uncoated screw-in filters, after all.
 
PaulButler said:
Shame you are not down my neck of the woods (or me up your way ... o_O ) - you could have used my filters and see how you get on. fwiw I've not regretted getting them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind offer Paul, I think it's just a case of coming round to the idea of spending that kind of money on a bit of glass
 
005269 said:
I use a hoya 77mm PRO ND1000 ten stop and a hoya pro digital circular polariser and they are both excellent. Both together cost about £100. I travel too much to chuff about taking another bag with all the holders, adaptors and other gubins required with the slot in systems.
Click to expand...

That's fine if all your lenses have the same filter size. If you have various sizes it soon becomes a bit more cost effective. I've presently got 49, 67, 77 and one that needs a special adapter. So my filter system would be more expensive and arguably lower quality if I were to use screw ins.
 
Wayne Els said:
That's fine if all your lenses have the same filter size. If you have various sizes it soon becomes a bit more cost effective. I've presently got 49, 67, 77 and one that needs a special adapter. So my filter system would be more expensive and arguably lower quality if I were to use screw ins.
Click to expand...

Agreed although I have a couple of step up rings for my smaller primes, in reality it's generally my 16-35 that I use the filters on most. Not convinced that any of the other systems are optically better than the pro Hoya glass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top