Sony A6700 Lens Filters for Everyday Shooting?

[LEMCCAN]

What filters would be beneficial for lenses used for travel photography? I think I used to have a polarizing lens filter on my old Canon, but it's been a while. We'll be travelling in and around London then on a cruise ship to some fjords in Norway, so mostly outside photography...

Thanks.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Usually, I'd say none. That's just one more thing to pack into your bag and one more layer in front of your lens that theoretically could degrade the image if it's dirty, scratched, or poor quality. Only take filters if you can think of scenarios where they are needed.
If you think you're going to want to do long exposure photos, then obviously an ND filter.
If you anticipate lots of glare or unwanted reflections, maybe a polarizer.

Keep it simple, right?

 

[LEMCCAN]

So if I plan to take photos that have the ocean, a polarizer would be helpful. Thanks.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

So if I plan to take photos that have the ocean, a polarizer would be helpful. Thanks.

Depends on the situation and your tastes. If you have one and want to carry it for "just in case" that's up to you.
Here are some I took on my last cruise and I think a polarizer might only have improved one or two of the photos:

My first cruise: Sailing on the Disney Wish 2023

As alluded to in my previous thread ( https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/photography-on-cruises.7771/ ) I went on my first cruise ever a few weeks ago. What I didn't realize was that it really wasn't the best time for my camera; the cellphone snaps reigned supreme and my go-pro did...

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Richard A]

What camera and lenses are you using? I reckon a polarising filter would be well worth taking. They don't take up much room. I probably wouldn't bother with NDs unless you are taking a tripod or are intending to do video.

 

[LEMCCAN]

What camera and lenses are you using? I reckon a polarising filter would be well worth taking. They don't take up much room. I probably wouldn't bother with NDs unless you are taking a tripod or are intending to do video.

A Sony A6700 camera with the kit lens, but I also purchased a Sony 16-55mm f/2.8 lens. I may also look into another zoom lens, but am unsure what power it may be. I've been looking at a Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 lens, but would consider other options. I'm just not sure how powerful a zoom I would use for such a trip.

 

[Richard A]

You should look at the new Tamron 50-300 if you’re looking at a lens of that size.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

You should look at the new Tamron 50-300 if you’re looking at a lens of that size.

I'm very happy with that lens

 

[iamdlewis]

What filters would be beneficial for lenses used for travel photography? I think I used to have a polarizing lens filter on my old Canon, but it's been a while. We'll be travelling in and around London then on a cruise ship to some fjords in Norway, so mostly outside photography...

Thanks.

I would say that for this trip go with either no filters or just a polarizer. I say this because filters are great tools as long as you take the time to understand when and how to use them. The polarizer (liner or circular) is easy to understand, see the impact of and difficult to use wrong. Other filters like ND5 are less obvious as to what the impact will be and really take time to learn.

The last thing you want to be doing on a trip is fiddling with filters trying to get some effect that you think you should be able to get by using it. Better to go without and spend more time enjoying the trip.

Personally I've been toying with filters a little for a couple years and can say that I have only mastered my solar filter. That is only because you use a solar filter to take photos of the sun, it really doesn't have any other use.

 

[THXGEEK]

Another perspective for your consideration.

I am of the opinion that I will always have at least a clear filter on my lens (and usually a high-quality Hoya HD3 UV filter). The primary purpose is to provide protection from dust, dirt, sand, water, smudges, bird droppings (yes, I've had that happen), greasy children's fingers or dog's licking everything in reach (yes, I've had that happen, too) for my lens. A filter costs $ and the lens costs $$ to $$$$. I'd much rather sacrifice a (much cheaper) filter than a more expensive lens.

Having said that... A filter will NOT protect your lens from a hard shock - if a hit can break the lens, a filter offers no protection.

Next, be aware that a filter will have some degree of impact on the pictures that you take. As a metaphor, Audiophiles speak of the perfect amplification as 'straight wire, with gain'. The same concept DOES apply to photography. In a pure world, you will have minimal glass and process between you and your subject. But it is a matter of degree. A UV filter may have the advantage of clearing hazy skies, but it may degrade in other conditions.... To a small extent. The same with other filters (more or less), depending on their purpose.

Having said that, any degradation that I may have experienced by my Hoya HD3s is almost certainly overcome by post-processing. For me, I haven't taken a single picture in the last decade where I haven't done some level of post processing. I'm betting that many of the folks here are in the same boat. Cropping, brightness, contrast, saturation, focus, sharpening, denoising, ect. will almost certainly balance out whatever ill effects that a filter may introduce into your pictures.

...As always, YMMV.

Cheers!