Best Lens Hood for the Fuji X100, X100S, and X100T

Check out this lens hood for the Fuji X100, the JJC LN-RC49.  It's a clone of Pentax's lens hood for its DA 40 f/2.8 pancake lens (MH-RC 49mm).  It is sold as a complete set, with adapter ring and hood for around $30.  However, I got it for much less than that by buying a clone hood for the X100 (around $8) and using the adapter included with the hood (which is similar to the Fuji AR-X100), then I found the hood by itself on eBay for around $12.

Like the Fuji hood and most of its clones, this hood is also made of metal.  There is a silver version and a black version, although as a set I've only seen the silver version.

Compared to Fuji's lens hood, this hood:

• is more compact (smaller diameter)
• has a thinner profile
• obstructs less of the optical viewfinder
• doesn't block the flash
• shades the lens better from flare
• protects the lens better (because of the narrower opening)
• looks more stylish (in my opinion), and
• costs only a little more than a clone of the Fuji lens hood.

Note 1: like the Fuji hood, there is no vignetting from this lens hood.

Note 2: if you use this hood, you cannot put the included X100 lens cap over it.

To be fair, a Fuji lens hood or clone has the advantage of having a bayonet-style release (therefore it's easier to remove), and some may prefer its style over this one.  Another disadvantage is that although this hood protects the lens better from dust, if dust does get on the front element, you can't clean it off as readily as with the Fuji hood.  You'll either have to unscrew the lens hood first or else use a brush.  Or you can use a filter in front (see below).

There are two ways to use filters together with this hood.  Either you put a 49mm filter behind the lens hood, or you put a 30.5mm filter in front of the lens hood.  In the shot above, I have a UV filter (Hoya HD UV filter with hardened glass) installed behind the lens hood.  I should add that although the front element of the X100 lens moves in and out when focusing, it doesn't bump into the UV filter (the adapter is pretty deep).  Note: I haven't tried a 30.5mm filter, so I don't know yet for sure if there will be vignetting when doing that (but I've ordered one from B&H at a huge discount, so stay tuned).

UPDATE: I tried attaching different 30.5mm filters, and there was no vignetting, even with a Hoya circular polarizer that had a thicker rim.

You can get a lens cap for this hood in the 30.5mm size, like this one.  The Camera Hunter cap does not fit.  It is actually 30mm, not 30.5mm, so it's too loose.

Note: There's a similar lens hood that has a rounder appearance here though I think the one I got looks better, and I don't think you can mount a filter or cap over this rounder one.

DISCLOSURE: we receive a small commission (at no cost to you) on products purchased through the links above on Amazon. 100% of the proceeds are donated to 501(c)(3) charities such as www.FoodforthePoor.org.  We're not affiliated with eBay, any eBay vendor(s) above, or B&H.

Filters for Protecting Lenses: High-End vs. Budget vs. Dirt-Cheap

With digital photography, using filters to achieve special effects has become much less common, with the exception of neutral density filters, graduated ND filters, and circular polarizers.  The other exception, with some controversy, is the use of filters to protect lenses.  Typically, UV filters or sometimes skylight (warming) filters are used for this purpose.

In this post, we compare images from lenses without any filter, with a budget filter, and a high-end filter.  The filters I tested were:
(a) a high-end filter, the Hoya HD Hardened Glass 8-layer Multi-Coated Digital UV Filter, around $70 for 77mm.
(b) a budget filter, the Hoya skylight filter (standard version, not multi-coated), around $20 for 77mm.  Note: the skylight filter has a warming effect, so for purposes of this comparison, please take that into account as part of the filter design and not an inherent characteristic of budget filters.
I've also included a separate test for an ultra-cheap generic UV filter.

I tested the filters on two lenses:
(i) a flare-resistant lens, the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G on a Nikon D3; and
(ii) a lens that is [supposedly] susceptible to flare and ghosting, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a Fuji S5 Pro.
Both lenses use 77mm filters so I was able to use the same set of filters for the tests.

Hit the jump for the samples.

Easiest DIY Infrared Filter

If you have a popup flash that can act as a wireless flash commander but want to block the popup from contributing to the exposure, there are a few options out there such as the Nikon SG-3IR infrared panel (which can also work for Canon with some modification).  You can also create your own infrared panel using negative film that has been exposed and developed.  But the easiest DIY version is to use a floppy disk.

It's a little hard to find a 5.25 inch diskette, but 3.5 inch disks can still be found every now and then.  Try thrift stores and dollar stores.  Once you find some, it's easy to take a disk apart even without tools.

What I then do is to fold the magnetic disk into half, then half again to 1/4th its original size, then wrap it around the popup flash with tape. Voila... an instant DIY infrared filter.

With this filter, the visible light from the popup flash will be reduced significantly, but you'll still be able to trigger other flashes optically.

Graduated ND filter

I took some shots with the graduated neutral density filter I got from Fotodiox and compared the results with those of a circular polarizer.

SAMPLE SHOTS

The Cokin style filter holder allows the graduation to be positioned anywhere in the frame:

TEST SHOTS VS. CIRCULAR POLARIZER
Both a circular polarizer and a grad ND filter can be used to get bluer skies.  However, there are differences. First, a circular polarizer will reduce reflections from water surfaces as well. If that's what you want to do, then a circular polarizer would be a good choice.  In this particular case, I thought the reflections made the water look more interesting, so I opted for the grad ND with the shots above.

No filter - ISO 160, 1/250, f/13:

Circular polarizer at minimum polarization - ISO 160, 1/250, f/6.3:

Circular polarizer at maximum polarization - ISO 160, 1/250, f/6.3:

Graduated ND filter - ISO 160, 1/250, f/6.3:

Second, with an ND filter, the graduation would darken the entire upper part of the frame (whereas a circular polarizer would make only the skies deeper blue, without darkening other elements in the photo such as clouds and foreground objects). In this shot the ND filter darkened the cow's head. I should have used a circular polarizer:


Third, the effect of an ND filter is less pronounced at telephoto lengths.  This one was at 50mm (75mm equivalent in 35mm terms)

STACKED CPL AND GRAD ND
Out of curiosity I tried stacking a circular polarizer and graduated ND filter.  The effect looks too unnatural for me but I suppose it can be used for special effects such as to darken skies.

Graduated ND and circular polarizer at minimum polarization:

Graduated ND and circular polarizer at maximum polarization:

Fotodiox Generic Cokin P type Filters - Test Shots

Summer's around the corner and in anticipation of more outdoor shots, I bought filters.  I'm not into landscape photography, and I don't expect to use them very often, so I couldn't justify spending a lot on them.  I turned to ebay and found these filters from Fotodiox.  The "Cokin P" style filter holder is made by Tian Ya.  The filters have no identifying marks.  I called Fotodiox to ask them if they are the same as the ones by Tian Ya.  Fotodiox isn't familiar with Tian Ya, but did confirm the filters are made in China with CR-39 plastic.

Link to album with test shots
Update: real world shots with circular polarizer
Update: sample shots with graduated ND filter

Build quality
Build quality seems reasonable for the price.
The adapter (which is screwed onto the lens) is made of aluminum.  The threading seems ok - I attached it to my lens (Tamron 17-50 VC) with no problems.
The filter holder is made of plastic (ABS plastic?).  It looks like it will withstand normal use.  It fits onto the adapter fairly well (it doesn't rattle or anything).
The filters are plastic (Fotodiox states that they are made of CR-39 plastic, the same as some of Cokin's filters).  Other than the circular polarizer, they are all cut to the same rectangular dimensions: 4 inches x 3.5 inches (actually 3 15/16 x 3 6/16).
I've read a criticism posted on photo.net forums about the filters being too loose in the holder.  I didn't find that to be an issue with my holder and my filter.  I didn't dare shake my camera and my lens to test but I shook the filter holder with filters inserted. It seems to me that normal shaking from ordinary use will not cause noticeable movement in the filter.  A vigorous movement, as though you're throwing a paper airplane, can cause the filter to move (about three such jerks would be sufficient to dislodge a filter).  Jerking the filter holder extremely hard like your life depended on it can dislodge the filter in one jerk.
Update: because the filters are rectangular and are larger than the filter holder itself, the filters can get pushed accidentally in crowded areas.

Vignetting
Although the P series is advertised for a 35mm focal length equivalent of 28mm or longer, I can use it on the Tamron 17-50 with no apparent vignetting even at 17mm (25.5mm equivalent) except when the holder is tilted at a diagonal.  When the filter holder is at a diagonal, vignetting is visible until about 25mm (37.5 mm equivalent) when it becomes very slight.
Baseline shot at 17mm (no filter holder):


Test shot at 17mm (filter holder attached, level):


Test shot at 17mm (filter holder attached, tilted):


Test shot at 25mm (filter holder attached, tilted):
 

Accuracy of Exposure Reduction from Neutral Density filters.
I also wanted to know if the neutral density filters reduced exposure to the indicated extent.  I took test shots of our white garage door in manual mode, JPEG, picture control: neutral (default settings), white balance: custom.  Briefly, the ND2 and ND4 are reasonably accurate.  The ND8 acts almost like an ND32 (4.6 stops reduction).

Baseline shot (no filter) at ISO 200:

Test shot with ND2 (1 stop reduction) at ISO 400:

Test shot with ND4 (2 stop reduction) at ISO 800:

Test shot with ND8 (3 stop reduction) at ISO 1600:

Test shot with ND8 (3 stop reduction) at ISO 5000 (2/3 stop more than 3200):


Test shot with ND4 and ND2 stacked, at ISO 1600:

Comparison of ND8 (top) with stacked ND4 and ND2 (bottom):



Circular polarizer's effectiveness at filtering polarized light.
To test the circular polarizer's effectiveness, I took test shots through polarized sunglasses and tested how opaque the sunglasses became.  I found that at the peak of the polarized light filtration, the CPL blocked about 7 stops of polarized light.
CPL test shot through polarized sunglasses - minimum filtration, ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/250:

CPL test shot through polarized sunglasses - maximum filtration, ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/250:

CPL test shot through polarized sunglasses - maximum filtration, ISO 6400, f/3.2, 1/60:


Color cast:
ND2: no color cast found based on histogram:

ND4: no color cast found based on histogram:

Stacked ND2 and ND4: noticeable reddish color cast:

"ND8" (~ND16): noticeable reddish color cast:

Graduated ND: noticeable brownish color cast:

Circular polarizer: noticeable brownish color cast:

One Filter Ring to Rule Them All

Benefits of Filters

Filters are attached to lenses to achieve effects such as changing color cast, etc.  Thanks to digital imaging, many filters can now be simulated in postprocessing (Photoshop, Paint Shop, etc.).  However, filters are still relevant.  Some people use UV filters to shield their lenses from physical damage after all. :)  Seriously, there are some filter effects that are still difficult or impossible to replicate in postprocessing:

1. circular polarizer: cuts reflection and glare.  The blue of the sky can be made to look deeper blue.  You may be able to avoid some reflections in glass, depending on the angle of the glass relative to the camera (think of all the bus tour photos you can take! :) ).  You may have seen those postcards with tantalizingly clear waters for snorkeling.  Part of that clarity is from blocking reflections.

2. neutral density filter: reduces the exposure value.  You've seen those waterfall shots with flowing water.  You're savvy enough to know those were done with long exposures.  What you might not have known (unless you've tried it) is that those long exposures are sometimes impossible without a neutral density filter, especially for newer DSLRs with a base ISO of 200.  In addition, an ND filter can also be used to get a wide aperture (for shallow depth of field) in bright conditions, and can give your flash a higher output than an equivalent exposure at a higher shutter speed that requires high speed sync.

3. graduated neutral density filter: reduces the exposure value for part of the scene.  This is one way to expand the dynamic range of your image.  You can adjust the graduation to cover just the brighter parts of the scene you're capturing (e.g. clouds, windows).

4. split field - increases the depth of field.

5. infrared: blocks visible light, allows photography of infrared wavelength.  Infrared is a photographic genre in itself.  Sorry I don't have samples.  But here are links.

In short, filters are useful when taking shots outdoors.

Cokin filter holder system
Are you getting ready to buy filters?  Well, don't get one just yet.  The typical round screw-in filter is screwed onto the lens.  Each of your lenses has a certain filter size, such as 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, etc.  You buy filters for each filter size you have.  Although filters can be stacked one on top of the other, the filter rings of the stacked filters become cumulatively thick enough that they can cause vignetting.

Unlike typical filters, the Cokin system uses a filter holder and square or rectangular filters instead.  An adapter is screwed onto your lens, then the filter holder is in turn attached to the adapter. Filters are then slid into the filter holder.

Advantages of the Cokin system:
1. Adjustable positioning. Cokin filter holders can be freely rotated and the filters can be moved up or down.  This makes the filters usable even if the lens rotates during focus.  For graduated filters, this allows precise control of where the graduation begins.  For vignette or selective focus type filters, this allows the precise positioning of the vignette or area of selective focus.

2. Speed - it's faster to slide filters on and off a Cokin filter holder than screwing filters on and off lenses.

3. Filters can be shared between lenses. Just buy a filter holder and adapter ring for each lens, or just adapter rings.  Filters of the same series can be shared between lenses.

4. Stackable - a Cokin holder can hold up to 3 filters (1 of which can be a rotatable filter) at the same time. Cokin holders can also be paired together to allow stacking of up to 6 filters, though vignetting can become an issue for anything less than a telephoto lens.

5. Less susceptible to vignetting - because the filter holder is generally much wider than the lens, there is less chance for vignetting.  Cokin recommends these filter holders for these focal lengths:
A series: lens up to 62mm filter size, for 35mm focal length equivalent of 35mm or longer.
P series: lens up to 82mm filter size, for 35mm focal length equivalent of 28mm or longer.
P series wide angle (BPW700): offers 20% more angle of vision, for 35mm focal length equivalent of 20mm or longer. Uses same filters as P series, but accommodates only 1 filter at a time.
Z series: lens up to 96mm filter size, for 35mm focal length equivalent of 20mm or longer.
X series: lens up to 118mm filter size, for 35mm focal length equivalent of 15mm or longer.


6. Handholdable.  It is possible to do without a holder and simply handhold filters in front of the lenses.  This can help further avoid vignetting.

7. Cost - Cokin type filters usually cost less than equivalent round screw-in filters of similar quality because of economies of scale and because the Cokin filters are simpler to manufacture.

8. Less likely to damage your lens.  High quality round screw-in filters are often made of glass.  The problem is that if the glass is shattered, the fragments can damage your lens.  Cokin filters (and some clones) are made of CR-39 optical plastic, which I'm supposing is less likely to shatter and I'm also supposing shattered CR-39 fragments, being less dense than glass, are less likely to scratch your lens.

Disadvantages:
1. Size.  It adds to the bulkiness of your lens.
2. You can't use your lens cap.  You can, however, buy a lens cap specifically for a Cokin holder.  The lens cap doesn't cover the lens completely, and it may allow dust to reach the lens, but at least your lens will be protected from bumps.
3. You can't use your lens hood. You can, however, buy a lens hood specifically for a Cokin holder.  The Cokin lens hood isn't a perfect design because it is uniform in thickness (not petal shaped), so there's a high possibility of vignetting for wide angle lenses.

Cokin isn't the only filter holder maker.  Lee and Singh-Ray also produce filter holder systems but their filters are more expensive than Cokin.

Cost:
So how much damage will this do to your budget?  The Z and X series are expensive but the A and P series are affordable.  An original Cokin P series holder with an adapter costs less than $20.  On ebay and other places, there are copies of the Cokin P series holder and filters at a fraction of that.  For less than $35, I bought these from Fotodiox:
- Cokin P holder clone (Tian Ya brand) with aluminum 72mm adapter
- circular polarizer
- ND8 (3 stop reduction)
- ND4 (2 stop reduction)
- graduated ND
- a case for each filter
- lens cap

I chose Fotodiox because other Cokin clones are made of unspecified plastic, whereas Fotodiox's are specifically made of CR-39 plastic (same material as some eyeglasses), just like some of Cokin's filters.  In addition, Fotodiox ships from USA, so it allows instant gratification :D  (I had to wait for my D300 remote from Hong Kong for 3 weeks...)

Fotodiox also sells the ND filters as a set (ND2, ND4, ND8).  If you ask them, they can substitute the ND2 for a graduated ND, which is what I requested.

Fotodiox has spectacular customer service.  They sent me the ND2 instead of the graduated ND by mistake but when I followed up, they offered to send the graduated ND without the need to return the ND2.  My ND4 and ND8 were also chipped, and they sent replacements without questions.

(Note: I'm not affiliated with Fotodiox.)

I will update this post with "real world" shots using these filters.

Update: Here are test shots of the Fotodiox generic filters.

Improving Flash Efficiency with an ND filter (Intermediate)

A neutral density (ND) filter reduces the exposure value of the image, as if you used a lower ISO.  ND filters are commonly used in: 1) taking long exposures in bright conditions (e.g. waterfall shots with flowing water); 2) getting a wide aperture (for shallow depth of field) in bright conditions.

Another way ND filters can be used is to improve flash efficiency compared to high speed sync. 

Quick Review of Sync Speed:
Sync speed is the fastest shutter speed that will still allow the entire image frame to be exposed to the flash.  At a shutter speed higher than the sync speed, the rear curtain of the shutter begins to close even before the front curtain has traveled fully, so at any particular point in time while the front and rear curtain are traveling, only a portion of the image is exposed (let's call this the "window").  As a result, if flash is fired at that time, the flash beam would reach only the window portion of the image.  The part that is not reached is usually seen as a dark bar along the edge of the image.  For this reason, many cameras prevent you from selecting a higher shutter speed than sync speed if the camera knows that flash is being used (however, the camera can be tricked into firing anyway with the use of a radio trigger).

High Speed Sync:
High speed sync works around the natural sync speed limitation by causing the flash to fire repeatedly while the window is traveling, thus in effect allowing the entire image to be exposed to the flash.  The downside of high speed sync is a drastic reduction in power.  Instead of one big output, the flash releases multiple smaller outputs.  The higher the shutter speed, the more drastic the reduction in power.

ND Filter vs. High Speed Sync:
Using an ND filter is a reasonable alternative to high speed sync and allows the flash to function more efficiently.  To prove the greater efficiency of an ND filter, I did the following test: I compared flash ranges between high speed sync versus the equivalent range with an ND filter.  I did this comparison with an ND2, ND4, and ND8 filter.

Test 1: 1/250 with ND2 filter vs. high speed sync at 1/500.

• 1/500 shutter speed @ f/2.8, ISO 200. Indicated range (displayed on the flash): 5.0 meters.
• 1/250 shutter speed @ f/2.8, ISO 200 with ND2 filter (1 stop reduction). Indicated range: 15 meters.  Adjusting for a 1 stop reduction*: equivalent to 10.7 meters.

Test 2: 1/250 with ND4 filter vs. high speed sync at 1/1000.

• 1/1000 shutter speed @ f/2.8, ISO 200. Indicated range: 3.6 meters.
• 1/250 shutter speed @ f/2.8, ISO 200 with ND4 filter (2 stop reduction). Indicated range: 15 meters.  Adjusting for a 2 stop reduction*: equivalent to 7.5 meters.

Test 3: 1/250 with ND4 filter vs. high speed sync at 1/2000.

• 1/2000 shutter speed @ f/4, ISO 200. Indicated range: 2.5 meters.
• 1/250 shutter speed @ f/4, ISO 200 with ND8 filter (3 stop reduction). Indicated range: 15 meters.  Adjusting for a 3 stop reduction*: equivalent to 5.4 meters.

*Note: the range adjustment for a 1, 2, or 3 stop reduction is based on a division by a factor of 1.4 per f-stop.  See here or http://www.photozone.de/the-guide-number-gn . Thus a 1-stop reduction would divide the range by 1.4. A 2-stop reduction would divide the range by 2.  A 3-stop reduction would divide the range by 2.8.

The range with an ND filter is consistently at least double that of the range with HSS, implying at least a 2-stop advantage (i.e., 4x more available power) with the ND filter.

Conclusion: all other factors being equal, using an ND filter at the camera's sync speed will allow the flash to reach a longer range (i.e., have a higher effective output) compared to using a faster shutter speed (with equivalent exposure) with high speed sync.  Specifically, the range with an ND filter is at least double the range with HSS.  However, in cases where freezing action is the goal, HSS may be necessary unless flash duration is being used to freeze action.

I don't have access to other equipment such as other flashes, other bodies, or other brands, but given that HSS works similarly across manufacturers, I suspect the predicted increase in range will be similar for other equipment.

UPDATE: Neil van Niekerk did an HSS tutorial.  He found a 2-stop loss from HSS (same as predicted by the experiment above).