Am very keen to buy this lens, but what filter should i get with it? UV, Polarizing or??

I have seen many contradicting things, but i know on stw there are some good photographers – have seen their stuff – so thinking the advice is better than a guess..

ta!

UV to protect it, polarizer for when you need one. The only other filter worth considering (for any digital camera) would be a ND. Or half ND.

A CP on a 10mm will give quite a lot of gradient across the sky (ie dark blue to light blue and back again in one shot)

I quite like this, but some others don't. It's certainly not perfect for every shot.

As the previous poster says, try and buy a UV or Daylight filter to protect the lens. However, the 10 – 20 will see the rim of the filter at 10mm, so try and buy the thinnest rimmed filter you can – Hoya Pro UV or similar. A CP (or circular polariser) will add detail to skies etc and take way a lot of glare, but at 10mm your lens will show a dark corner, and also some "vignetting" (Google it) – again try to buy a thin rimmed filter. ND filters will reduce the amount of light allowed through the lens, which lets you use a longer shutter speed (if you want to give the impression of movement etc, eg waterfalls with flowing water). Start with a UV, then buy a CP, and go from there.

i've got a standard hoya skylight filter on my 10-20mm sigma on a canon body – seems to do what it says on the tin. Due to the length of the lens, you can take the piss with shutter speeds, so a polariser won't be the handicap it would otherwise be in lowish light situations.

First one with CP

Second with UV
Both taken at 10mm

Rarely use filters with mine. Occasionally use a polariser but only from about 12-13mm up. Even the Cokin-P's vignette at the wide end.

That's familiar. From earlier today…

Keep in mind if you do buy a filter, especially a UV/protective filter, you need to get a good one or you'll end up with a lens that is prone to horrendous flare.

One of mine using the 10-20mm Sigma with a polariser fitted.

I have a polariser and an ND Grad. Couldn't see a use for any others myself. epicsteve's show's how good a polariser can make certain shots, the sky is fantastic. The ND grad pays back in other areas.

UV or skylight is prmanently on as a protector. I also always carry a circular polariser and a few ND grads and a selection of ND filters for my cokin P series filters.

Nice shot samurai!

Nice, thanks for that!

Now need to get an order in on Amazon cos here in Switzerland its more than twice the price..

None of those examples needed a poleriser mind 😉 In my camera bag there are the following:

Set of ND Grads (1,2,3 stop) – all soft edged as I tend not to be shooting stuff with flat horizons 😉 These get the most use of anything

3 stop ND – just to slow down exposures a bit when I need to.

Circular Polariser – used ONLY to cut down reflections. The saturation boosting ability used to be handy when shooting on film, but on digital – no need.

You need to remember that anything you stick infront of your lens is compromising the quality of the recorded image, and that goes for even the best quality filters you can get. Don't leave stuff permanently on the front of your camera for that reason, just use them when you need them. If I were shooting high altitude I may consider a UV filter to get a bit more clarity too, and cut back on post process time

You need to remember that anything you stick in front of your lens is compromising the quality of the recorded image, and that goes for even the best quality filters you can get. Don't leave stuff permanently on the front of your camera for that reason, just use them when you need them.

What he said, except ..

If I were shooting high altitude I may consider a UV filter to get a bit more clarity too

Digital sensors are more or less insensitive to UV, so no point to using a UV filter.

Didn't know that – and I don't wind up high enough to bother with one very often anyway 😉

Circular Polariser – used ONLY to cut down reflections. The saturation boosting ability used to be handy when shooting on film, but on digital – no need.

Not sure that part is entirely true either. CP seems to help punch through haze sometimes (presumably by filtering some of the refracted light) which helps boost saturation and clarity in a way that would be difficult to do in image editing.

Clarity and saturation are dead easy to meddle with in PP though, which is why I wouldn't use a filter to do it. I know what you are getting at, but I feel that throwing a CP at it is the wrong (and if you want a decent one, a very expensive) way of going about it.

At 10mm on crop (so about 16/17mm full frame – which is what I am on) you also have the issue of vignetting if you use a fat filter, so you really need to go for a slimline version, or one of the square filter set ups (Lee/Cokin Z or X etc)… my Cokin Z Pro CP was around £200 I think…. You can buy Photoshop Lightroom for less which will do much more good (unless you are trying to cut down reflective surfaces which is something that can ONLY be done by a polerising filter at the time of shooting).

I actually quite like vignetting and sometimes end up adding it (or emphasising whatever is already there).

But then I'm just using a Hoya Green CP, which was about £20 off ebay. 🙂

Yeah – I add it quite often too, but would rather do so in a controlled way when I want it 😉 I quite often use it to focus the eye into the frame… depends what I am doing though!

When I can take shots as good as yours Rob (or the others in this thread) then I'll consider spending £200 on a filter and give myself the choice 😀

I can't be doing with people who add filters for protection – generally only very expensive filters will not degrade image quality, so what you're doing is buying a nice pricey lens then whapping a £20 filter in front of it ruining the image. I can, or course, understand people using filters for a reason, but not for "protection". Keep your lens cap on while not using it, but while using it you shouldn't need protection. If you clout the end of your lens enough to break the filter you're likely to have damaged the lens, and if you're talking about scratches, that's what the cap is for and it doesnt degrade the image quality!

I use protective filters (f'kin expensive ones). I'd rather clean a disposable (all be it expensively disposable) bit of glass than a very expensive lens.

But, yes, no point putting a £20 filter on a £600 lens. You end up with £20 image quality.

I just insure my kit.

Even very expensive filters degrade image quality, and cleaning lenses isn't really an issue 😉 There are places that I would probably consider popping a filter on for protection, but that would be an exception rather than a rule.

Oh aye – and cheers Graham – I feel all appreciated now 😉

Even very expensive filters degrade image quality

In theory. In practice you won't see it. Flare is the killer with cheap filters, with an expensive one they won't add any flare.