Skip the UV, use your hood. I only use UVs if it's REALLY nasty out, but even then my UWA can't take them so why bother on the lenses in the bag.

For CPs and NDs, get them in the filter size you think you'll eventually land on. IE 77mm would probably be best if you can afford them now so you NEVER have to upgrade them. I'd go for a 10 stop ND as the 3 stops seem to do what I can with faked ISOs and tiny apertures, 10 stops is a MASSIVE difference on the other hand. CPs are awesome for water and glass.

GNDs, you need panels. I'd go Z-pro now because you will eventually anyway (search for filter threads, EVERY SINGLE P USER HERE HAS (or wants to) SWITCHED TO Zs!!!!!). I'd suggest getting a 3 stop soft to start. I have 1 2 and 3 stops (they came in a kit) and only use the 3 stop. Cokin has the cheapest holders, but people bitch their filters aren't neutral. (I use them anyway as they're the only option in sizes bigger than Z). Hi Tech is another good brand that isn't stupid expensive.

Oh, and call 2filter.com. Their site SUCKS, but they'll answer when you call, they're in NH, and they have the best prices around. They sell Z pro kits with a good non cokin filter, a cokin holder and one ring for ~$150 or something like that.

I'd also recommend getting you ND as a panel too so once you put on the filter adapter it's easier to drop in. This also means you won't have to worry about the thread size. Cokin also makes CPs for their holders which are NOT cheap, but work pretty well in terms of just using their adapter rings and the same filter rig will work on pretty much ANY lens.

UV filter is debatable. I never use one, I don't put a filter on the front of the lens unless it provides a desired effect. This is not everyone's stance, some use them for protection.

IMHO - Must haves

3 stop ND filter

CPL Filter

2 or 3 stop Soft Edge GND Preferably a P sized or Z sized rectangular filter

I agree with Shawn and Ben on the filter recs. I don't use UVs either, if I'm anywhere that something could get at the front element (besides a little spray) I've got the lens cap on.

I can recommend these guys for round filters if you can wait:
http://www.maxsaver.net

I got my hoya hd cp from them and it's legit and cost less than half as much as B&H - it's grey market, though.

As for brands on the rectangular filters - I have both singh-ray and hi-tech stuff. The singh-ray is much more expensive and it feels like should be, but I can't see any optical difference between the hi-techs I have and the singh-ray.

How about skylight filter? Why would you want to use one of those?

I consider those the same as a UV filter, tbert. And, neither of which ever goes on my camera.

Exactly. And, it's a waste of money in my opinion.

Hmm. I've always had a UV filter on my FZ3. I'll take that off and see if there's any difference. If not, I'll leave it there just to protect the lens.

i have one filter: b+w 10 stop nd.

fwiw

Originally Posted by ride5000

i have one filter: b+w 10 stop nd.

fwiw

This filter is pure gold. But, I wouldn't mess with it until you at least have a concept of WHY it's pure gold.

I've got a UV filter on my 17-55 to keep dust out (i've seen some bad examples of dust in them with running no filter and want to keep resale up).

My must haves are a cp and that's honestly it.

Grad ND's are next up, but you can try for some hdr's instead, and a 10 stop is really nice for certain stuff but I honestly haven't used it much.

whats a filter?

Originally Posted by subimatt

whats a filter?

DId you use one on your 17-55?

Originally Posted by Markitos

I will say that I am one of the dumb ****ers who uses UV filters.

Me too It's a lot easier to clean a uv filter when you get fingerprints on it then cleaning the FE.

I use a UV filter, just in case someone runs my camera into a bunch of weeds

Originally Posted by CIM_Photography

So why no UV filters, guys? Just one more potential clarity issue to get past?

I had a UV on my Siggy 10-20mm and it came out of my bag and dropped onto the deck- the UV filter shattered apart and when it did, the glass actually pin pricked the lens on the Siggy... if I hadn't had it on there, lens would probably not have taken any damage.

Originally Posted by subimatt

whats a filter?

My friend Nick talks without one, so you 2 are in the same boat

hoods for life!!!

I do have a CP, 10 stop ND, and some 3 stop GNDs
I still need to learn how to use the ND/GNDs effectively

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

hoods for life!!!

I used to say that as well, but the more I shoot with GNDs the more you can't use them... I guess my 14-24mm has it built in, but yeah, I only use hoods around Elias now and only before I've decided to keep a lens.

Originally Posted by MK19

I had a UV on my Siggy 10-20mm and it came out of my bag and dropped onto the deck- the UV filter shattered apart and when it did, the glass actually pin pricked the lens on the Siggy... if I hadn't had it on there, lens would probably not have taken any damage.

I've always wished mythbusters would test that... filters, hoods, both and nothing, drop one of each from ~3' and see what happens.

that's why they should do it with 4 70-200 f/2.8 ISs....

or used 80-200s since they're old and cost less used realistically.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/745528

Originally Posted by thechickencow

DId you use one on your 17-55?

Nope.

I have a UV on the 100mm macro, mostly because the previous owner had it on there. It certainly does help keep the FE clean, though. I would use the hood more with that lens, but that kinda kills half of the working distance and scares lots of bugs off, so I just let the UV take the brunt of the impacts with grass and twigs and such. I haven't really noticed any difference in image quality with or without it, though I haven't done much testing without it. But other than that lens, I'm a big proponent of using hoods
Reed

Hmm, interesting theory on UVs. I always run one because there is a lot of flying rocks at Rally races. I don't like my hoods much because on my 17-55 I can't adjust the CPL easily. All though I did start using it on my 17-200mm.

Originally Posted by Michael Tuohy

I've heard opinions that: 1. With non-full-frame dslrs a grad ND filter doesn't work so well. and: 2: you can reproduce it faster in post processing than you can change out the filter.
I don't really know myself.

My opinion is the opposite. P sized (55mm) filters work great with Crop sensor cameras. Reproducing the effect in Photoshop is much more time consuming IMHO. I also hand hold my filters.

Originally Posted by Michael Tuohy

I've heard opinions that: 1. With non-full-frame dslrs a grad ND filter doesn't work so well. and: 2: you can reproduce it faster in post processing than you can change out the filter.
I don't really know myself.

I STRONGLY disagree.

+1 for UV filter usage.

i've saved thousands of dollars in lenses with only a couple hundred dollars worth of filter replacement due to flying rocks damaging said filters.

Originally Posted by Michael Tuohy

I've heard opinions that: 1. With non-full-frame dslrs a grad ND filter doesn't work so well. and: 2: you can reproduce it faster in post processing than you can change out the filter.
I don't really know myself.

I absolutely disagree in every possible way to that.

no, *I* disagree

can I disagree as well?

Actually, there's a lot to be said about HDRs -vs- exposure blends -vs- GNDs. If the scene has a reasonable even change in light across the frame, the GND wins every time. But if you have a cliff face, or single tree, or something UNeven in the light change, then HDRs or exposure blends can work better as you don't get black parts because the GND line MUST cover them. I've been playing around with this myself lately. I MUCH prefer using filters when I can and I DO NOT HDR my shots generally (I can't get them to look the way I want to, I know some people can, I just suck at it). But I've been using exposure blending more recently where I stack 2 images in PS and use a layer mask to blend them together.

I agree with you, Ben. Blending definitely has it's advantages but I hate to do it if the same thing could be accomplished in camera. I always end up messing around with blends for a long time trying to make them look natural.

Yeah, I'm definitely of the "do it in camera if at all possible" school of thought...
Reed