To oversize a filter on wide angle or not.

[otzi]

If one was to have a common filter size for most lenses what size would this be. On the assumption that many lenses are 67 or smaller what would be a safe oversize filter size to use. 77 ?. There are other many larger lenses, but commonsense must dictate, to a point anyway. With wide angle lenses 110XL 90, and 75's at what diameter filters on step up rings will vignetting clear?

If a bigger dia. lens was acquired I suppose moves one to square filters. But I was working on the idea of trying to have a common size of spin on filters.

To that end is there a favourite filter ring to use. Is brass better? Less grab? Who makes the better filter rings. Heliopan?

If one used Rosco gels behind the lens, easy if taped, would this cause less degradation than using glass behind the lens?

[Peter K]

From the optical point of view the best place for a filter is a flat gel-filter in the center of the lens. But this is only possible with lenses they have waterhouse-stops.

Some lenses have a thread also at the rear end and this has a smaller diameter. But the handling is not the same. Specialy with pol-filters.

I don't know magnetic filterholders for gel-filters ar still aviable. The holder was expensive but one could use alle the different hues of cheap gel-filters.

Every glass-filter is a lens. And as thicker as stronger. As bigger the diameter of the filter, as thicker it must be. This decreases the risk of breaking but increases the price also. With wide-angle lenses there is the risk of vignetting. Increased when adapter-rings are used.

The filter should be discarded when the thread has also small demages. It's much more expensive to fix a lens with a demaged thread.

I've tried to reduce my filter-collection with adapter-rings. But now I've a filter collection and an adapter-ring collection.

Peter K

[eric black]

I have invested in a lot of B + W 77mm slip-on lens caps which go onto the adapter ring that is permanently put onto each of my lenses. The system helps to protect the lens and standardizes my filter collection to 77mm filters only.

[Ralph Barker]

Standardizing on a filter size that works with all/most of one's lenses is, of course, a good idea. The practicality, however, depends, in part, on how resistant one is to Lens Lust. At first, the 77mm size is a reasonable choice, but thwarted by "just having to have" that 150mm SSXL with a 95mm filter size, for example. Then, you add a gel/resin system for 100mm filters, only to add a lens that takes 105mm or larger filters.

Murphy (of Murphy's Law) just loves the filter issue. Anybody with a pristine set of 6" gels?

[Mark Sawyer]

Murphy (of Murphy's Law) just loves the filter issue. Anybody with a pristine set of 6" gels?

I used to have a pristine set of 4" gels, but then I used them once...

For "normal-sized" lenses, I standardized to 67mm standard filters with step-up rings. On a few wide angles, I found I had to file out a bit of the inside of the ring to prevent vignetting or allow for movements. For the bigger lenses, I went to 4" square glass filters (still building my collection) and a home-made filter holder. I found the plastic, excuse me, "organic glass" Cokin-style filters scratched as easily as the gels...

[Kirk Gittings]

I standardize on my largest diameter lens (Nikkor 120 SW 77mm), put stepup rings permanently on all my other lenses, use a lenscap that fits the standard on all my lenses and use gel or glass at the largest diameter size. I seem to get clumsier as I get older and can't keep gel filters clean for very long so now it is all B&W glass 77mm. Very simple and more importantly very quick to set up and use.

[John O'Connell]

If you really have Schneider XL lenses, you might be stuck with 4x4 gels to avoid vignetting---as I understand it, if you put the center filter on the 110 SSXL, it no longer covers 8x10.

I've standardized on 4x4 gels in Lee squares, but I don't have lenses with 95mm or 135mm filter threads.