Beginner Filter adapters

P

paulca

Messages
95
Name
Paul Campbell
Edit My Images
Yes
So I have two lens, 40.5mm filter and a 49mm filter.

I believe you can buy adapter rings. I'm sure there are does and don'ts but are there any rules of thumb if, say, I wanted to buy one set of filters and adapter rings. Should I buy the larger filter and step it down or buy the smaller filter and step it up... or aim in the middle?

Currently I expect I should go the 49mm filters and step those down to the 40.5mm lens.

Any tips? Links, guides?
 
Buy the biggest filter and buy the rings that allow adaptation with the fewest rings possible - so in your case a 49mm filter and a 40.5/49 step-up ring.

Obviously think on if you're likely to buy any lenses with a larger front element - in my case "nah, never going to need anything bigger than 58mm" <immediately a 72mm lens is acquired> rinse & repeat for the 77mm...
 
Of course I would need the correct sized lens cap too. :) And so it begins.
 
paulca said:
So I have two lens, 40.5mm filter and a 49mm filter.

I believe you can buy adapter rings. I'm sure there are does and don'ts but are there any rules of thumb if, say, I wanted to buy one set of filters and adapter rings. Should I buy the larger filter and step it down or buy the smaller filter and step it up... or aim in the middle?

Currently I expect I should go the 49mm filters and step those down to the 40.5mm lens.

Any tips? Links, guides?
Click to expand...
You start with the lens size so to fit 49mm filters on a 40.5mm diameter lens you need to step UP not down.
In general stepping up only causes issues with fitting the lenses hood, but stepping down can cause vignetting. It doesn't always I have one lens with 37mm filter threads that doesn't show issues with 25mm filters fitted!
 
paulca said:
Of course I would need the correct sized lens cap too. :) And so it begins.
Click to expand...
And don't forget the lens hood. If the 49mm hood is a screw-in, it MAY suffice for both lenses. You won't know for sure until you get the 40.5-49mm step-up ring and filter. Let us know how it works out, as others may have similar concerns.
 
I'd go back a stage and ask why you feel the need for filters . . .
Every filter effect except for neutral density and polarisers (which do not actually filter anyway) can be produced better, more consistently and with more control in Photoshop, without reducing image quality and risking unwanted flare.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'd go back a stage and ask why you feel the need for filters . . .
Every filter effect except for neutral density and polarisers (which do not actually filter anyway) can be produced better, more consistently and with more control in Photoshop, without reducing image quality and risking unwanted flare.
Click to expand...

Exactly. ND filter. CPL filter. and a sacrificial UV filter as a lens protector.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'd go back a stage and ask why you feel the need for filters . . .
Every filter effect except for neutral density and polarisers (which do not actually filter anyway) can be produced better, more consistently and with more control in Photoshop, without reducing image quality and risking unwanted flare.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.
Both ND & polarisers filter, polarisers filtering out light that is polarised differently & ND filters filtering out a proportion of all wavelengths.
In addition to these there are filters that remove narrow band on interfering light such as various astronomical clear sky types (that block Mercury & sodium emission wavelengths produced by street lights with little effect otherwise) & the neodymium type (also known as 'red enhancer') that block the main sodium D lines changing the colour of autumn leaves or removing the orange glow from glass blowing again with minimal effect on other sources of colour. Many photographers also play with infra red transmitting filters that block all visual light. None of these effects can be produced at all by any amount of Photoshop. Infra red photography was developed in WW2 for good reason it can see differences that are completely hidden in visual light (camouflaged tanks among foliage back then).

Many of the results acheived with ordinary photographic filters on normal cameras can be produced in post processing. Even here there are effects that can be acheived at least on modified IR cameras that are not readily produced by post processing. I can for instance record blue & infrared with little green or red using a Wratten #47 (deep blue) filter on a full spectrum camera. The infra red portion will be spread across all three visual channels. There are millions of other more subtle enhancements that can be made by proper use of appropriate filters to show features not apparent to the eye. In real life light is NOT merely the red/green/blue colours our eyes (and hence normal cameras that are designed to mimic our eyes) visualise.
 
Petrochemist said:
Not true at all.
Both ND & polarisers filter, polarisers filtering out light that is polarised differently & ND filters filtering out a proportion of all wavelengths.
In addition to these there are filters that remove narrow band on interfering light such as various astronomical clear sky types (that block Mercury & sodium emission wavelengths produced by street lights with little effect otherwise) & the neodymium type (also known as 'red enhancer') that block the main sodium D lines changing the colour of autumn leaves or removing the orange glow from glass blowing again with minimal effect on other sources of colour. Many photographers also play with infra red transmitting filters that block all visual light. None of these effects can be produced at all by any amount of Photoshop. Infra red photography was developed in WW2 for good reason it can see differences that are completely hidden in visual light (camouflaged tanks among foliage back then).

Many of the results acheived with ordinary photographic filters on normal cameras can be produced in post processing. Even here there are effects that can be acheived at least on modified IR cameras that are not readily produced by post processing. I can for instance record blue & infrared with little green or red using a Wratten #47 (deep blue) filter on a full spectrum camera. The infra red portion will be spread across all three visual channels. There are millions of other more subtle enhancements that can be made by proper use of appropriate filters to show features not apparent to the eye. In real life light is NOT merely the red/green/blue colours our eyes (and hence normal cameras that are designed to mimic our eyes) visualise.
Click to expand...
Fair point, up to a point, but "polarising filters" are in fact polarising screens, not filters, and "ND filters" just reduce overall light transmission so cannot really be described as filters.

Yes, there are some other, very specialised filters, but as this question has been asked in the Beginner Forum I kind of assumed that the OP is much more likely to use the filters that were useful before digital photography. It surprises me that so many people still seem to think that it's a good idea to cover an expensive camera lens with unnecessary and inadequate UV filters that often create lens flare and nearly always throw away image quality.

But, each to their own. I was just pointing out that the popular camera filters have really been superseded by technology.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Fair point, up to a point, but "polarising filters" are in fact polarising screens, not filters, and "ND filters" just reduce overall light transmission so cannot really be described as filters.

Yes, there are some other, very specialised filters, but as this question has been asked in the Beginner Forum I kind of assumed that the OP is much more likely to use the filters that were useful before digital photography. It surprises me that so many people still seem to think that it's a good idea to cover an expensive camera lens with unnecessary and inadequate UV filters that often create lens flare and nearly always throw away image quality.

But, each to their own. I was just pointing out that the popular camera filters have really been superseded by technology.
Click to expand...
I quite agree with you about UV filters, they offer some protection from salt spray or airborne grit but neither of those are routine situations. They did help with many films so live on as the default for many old timers & the textbooks that recommended them for that reason still exist & offer loads of other advise that is still relevant so attract others to the cult. The main reason though is probably that photographic salesmen still get much more profit from extras like them.
 
I didn't think it was just to protect from harsh dirt/grit/spray, but also that it will take the brunt of me cleaning dust specs off it and if I scratch it, I can throw it in the bin and buy a new one.

Maybe there are better options or maybe the lens glass in even cheap lenses is resistant enough to rough handed newbies using the corner of a shirt to clean them.

Besides, the fact they are popular makes them also cheap. Maybe I could buy an expensive dedicated lens protector that does not produce flares, but then it might cost the same as my lens and defeat the purpose.
 
paulca said:
I didn't think it was just to protect from harsh dirt/grit/spray, but also that it will take the brunt of me cleaning dust specs off it and if I scratch it, I can throw it in the bin and buy a new one.

Maybe there are better options or maybe the lens glass in even cheap lenses is resistant enough to rough handed newbies using the corner of a shirt to clean them.

Besides, the fact they are popular makes them also cheap. Maybe I could buy an expensive dedicated lens protector that does not produce flares, but then it might cost the same as my lens and defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...
These are valid points but . . .
Every filter has the potential to cause lens flare, although (up to a point) the degree of potential does depend on the design of the lens.
Take your typical "nifty fifty" which usually has the front element fairly deeply recessed, which means that, in effect, it has a pretty effective built-in lens hood. Put a filter over the top of that and the lens hood has gone, and there is now a much larger, totally flat surface that is much more prone to flare.

With some designs of lens (and especially wideangle and zoom lenses, the lens is hardly recessed at all and already has a very large surface area, exposed to the sun or other light sources. Putting a flat filter over the top of that introduces greater potential for flare, but the difference is less than with a recessed lens.

Using a lens hood can help a lot - IMO a lens hood is the most useful camera accessory there is, as well as being one of the cheapest and should always be used - but very few of them are designed for efficiency. The reason for this is that they are primarily designed to work with zoom lenses, they aren't deep enough to be efficient because they need to work at the wide end of the lens, and most have a "petal" design, again for wideangle lenses, which reduces their effectiveness even further. In a perfect world, we would all have a number of different lens hoods for use with different focal lengths of lens, but we don't:(

What I use for outdoor photography is a rubber lens hood of very substantial design. When I'm using a wideangle lens I simply collapse it to avoid vignetting and it still works, up to a point, and is better than a petal lens hood. And in the studio, where there's more time, I use an adjustable bellows lenshood that can be set to the length needed. And I don't use filters.
 
paulca said:
I didn't think it was just to protect from harsh dirt/grit/spray, but also that it will take the brunt of me cleaning dust specs off it and if I scratch it, I can throw it in the bin and buy a new one.

Maybe there are better options or maybe the lens glass in even cheap lenses is resistant enough to rough handed newbies using the corner of a shirt to clean them.

Besides, the fact they are popular makes them also cheap. Maybe I could buy an expensive dedicated lens protector that does not produce flares, but then it might cost the same as my lens and defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...
Lenses are hard & reasonably robust, cleaning dust off them in a moderately careful manner will not cause any damage. Even having your lens swing against a branch as you walk past shouldn't cause any damage but filters CAN crack from that sort of impact & give rise to sharp hard edges which have the potential to scratch your lens.

Yes most lenses (not plastic ones) are indeed resistant to the corner of a shirt - provided said shirt doesn't have a bit of sand or similar on it...

Cheap UV filters are more prone to producing flare - they can be a reasonable disposable option during a visit to the beach. Many of my lenses are legacy models of fairly low quality and some of these I use without removing the ancient UV filter from the front. The effect of the filter is generally not noticeable let alone disastrous especially on 30+ year old consumable zooms but I wouldn't want to put one on my more expensive lenses (or ANY of the long telephotos which amplify any flaws) unless the environment really warranted it.
 
Okay. I'm learning. I have actually seen flares, but also other artifacts. I photo'd my brothers home made LED clock (radial/traditional layout). There were "other LEDs" or reflections of in the shot that probably shouldn't have been there, possible reflections off the lens, then reflecting back off the UV filter.

So... Put it on when the camera is likely to be camping, beaching, on the water, but leave it off for sanitary shooting.

@Garry Edwards

But I like lens flares :)
 
@Garry Edwards
In fairness, I get it. Lens flares look cool. A little cliche and a bit 1980s, and I'm sure they look great when intended, but can be a right PITA when they are in your shot and you don't want them. Especially, as they will probably hide until you get home and open the SDCard and have your heart sink. That feeling sucks. I'm learning, always take some "banker" photos. "This can't go wrong" photos, as well as experimenting shots. If the experimentation goes mamaries up, you still don't come away empty handed.
 
I use ND filters a lot it has become my fave fun way to shoot, lots of slow mo's and just arty stuff, i have 62mm filters with step down rings as that is my biggest lens the 12-40mm Olympus Pro
 
Mr Bump said:
I use ND filters a lot it has become my fave fun way to shoot, lots of slow mo's and just arty stuff, i have 62mm filters with step down rings as that is my biggest lens the 12-40mm Olympus Pro
Click to expand...
To use 62mm filters on smaller diameter lenses, you need step-UP rings. Here's an easy way to identify stepping rings:
If the male thread is larger than the female thread, it's a step-down ring.
It the male thread is smaller than the female thread, it's a step-up ring.
 
Winslowe said:
To use 62mm filters on smaller diameter lenses, you need step-UP rings. Here's an easy way to identify stepping rings:
If the male thread is larger than the female thread, it's a step-down ring.
It the male thread is smaller than the female thread, it's a step-up ring.
Click to expand...
I find it simpler to remember I head out from the camera to lens to filter, if the filter is bigger than the lens that's a step up. Both approaches give the same answer, so it's just a case of which is easier for an individual to remember.
 
Petrochemist said:
I find it simpler to remember I head out from the camera to lens to filter, if the filter is bigger than the lens that's a step up. Both approaches give the same answer, so it's just a case of which is easier for an individual to remember.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's another good way of looking at it.
Edit: The main thing is, one needs to know the correct terminology before ordering!
 
Last edited:
best thing is to order a set that fits together and gives you the sizes you need, i can service all four of my lens's with 3 adapters
 
Mr Bump said:
best thing is to order a set that fits together and gives you the sizes you need, i can service all four of my lens's with 3 adapters
Click to expand...
My lenses have at least 20 different filter threads between 25mm & 95mm I've never found a set that covers just the 'standard' sizes across this range let alone the enlarger lenses with odd pitches etc.

I do now have a number of spring type adapters that fit a wide range of sizes (one covers anything from 37mm to 49mm...) If I was sensible my filters would be restricted to a small range of normal sizes (37, 52, 58, 72 & 95 might do for me) but - since I shoot so much infra red etc - I have others such as 25mm bare technical filters, in addition to odd filters in other standard sizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top