Are you using slide, print film (color/b&w) or digital?
Using a step up ring or getting a slim filter would probably solve the vignetting problem.
Opinions on filters abound; here's mine. You might need a uv filter if you shoot in Alpine conditions, otherwise, no.I think the haze factor increases the feeling of depth in the picture.
A polorizer, a split ND filter comes in handy, if you are into landscapes with high contrast conditions. If you shoot slides, a 612 warming filter is handy.
An ND8 will ad 3 stops to the exposure; this is what makes water falls "creamy" looking.
B&w is whole 'nuther smoke. Separating tones is what they are used for; do you shoot b&w films?

Well at the moment I am heading off to my honeymoon in about a month and taking my Olympus OM-1 with me and I generally shot color negative in it. I have yet to try slide film and I have only shot a single roll of B&W so far (mixed results with that). My goal is to only take my 50mm f/1.8 for primarily indoor shots or low light and my 28-80mm f/3.5 for pretty much all other conditions.

We are going on a cruise from Northern Italy to Morocco and the Canary islands with a couple of stops in Spain as well. So it sounds like I will most likely be fairly well covered for the trip then. I do love doing nature photography and I have been seriously considering the need to get some neutral density filters for things like waterfalls and rivers/streams to be able to manage some fun effects, but this might have to be for my next major trip. If I can't get rid of the vignetting with filters I guess I can always go for another 28-80mm zoom lens down the road. My current one I acquired for only $10 off Ebay, but other then the vignetting with filters it actually works really well.

My other goal is getting a good 80-200mm f/4 zoom lens down the road, but for now my fiance has threatened death if I am playing with my camera to much on our honeymoon and I would like to spend as much time enjoying the trip as possible.

Thanks for the suggestion, and especially for calming me about UV filters as most of very long distance shots with my camera have been with my 50mm prime with a skylight filter on it which supposedly filters at least some UV as well (I have only had the 28-80mm zoom for about 3 weeks now and most of my 135mm shots have only been short or medium distance).
-Matt

PS at some point in time I would like to start doing a fair amount of B&W shooting, but I think for my honeymoon I will leave those couple of rolls at home and take 4-5 of iso400 and 1-2 of iso100 for when I know I will be outdoors for the roll.

Filters are specialized pieces of photographic equipment, designed to solve specific problems, and something that can ruin a picture faster than it can improve one, unless you really understand what the problems is and WHY the filter can fix it.

They also introduce two more refractive surfaces in front of your lens. As a filter, they take things out - which is what any filter does, photographic or otherwise. In most cases, you really don't want to take something out. With colour negatives, there is no need for colour balancing or light balancing filters. That is all done when the negatives are printed. Special effects like star filters can be useful in rare instances, but realize that the star is forever embedded in the image. If you decide you would really love to have a nice blowup of the scene, but without the star, you are out of luck.

A polarizing filter can be a real asset, but it comes with a pretty substantial learning curve. It is something to play with at leisure, not when you are on a trip of a lifetime. It can produce very nice results in some cases, and really lousy results in others. Again, the effect of the filter is permanently embedded in the negative. If used badly, there is no way to recover from it.

Filters can really save or enhance images, but only if the need is understood. When you run into a situation that can not be photographed otherwise, then is the time to buy that specific filter. They are in no way general purpose equipment to be used on every shot.

Larry, well said!

Thanks for the advice. I think what I will do is after my trip I will get a few used 49mm dia filters (81a, 81b, UV have filter, a couple of neutral density filters) to use on my 50mm f/1.8 and play around with them. That is probably the best way for me to learn the real capabilities of them and how they might aid me in my photography, and won't break the bank before I figure out when I might want to use what kind of filter (if any). Much better that then buying really high quality ones in 67 or 72mm size when I don't know if I will ever really use that kind of filter for the photography I will end up doing.

Thanks again!
-Matt

Quote:
Thanks for the advice. I think what I will do is after my trip I will get a few used 49mm dia filters (81a, 81b, UV have filter, a couple of neutral density filters)

The 81 series will slightly compensate for bluish light when shooting slides. With negatives, it is colour balanced out in printing and thus has no effect, if the print machine is working correctly. It can be easily simulated in the darkroom, if you are doing your own printing. The same is true with digital. The white-balance, simply eliminates any effect it may have. Again, it can be easily simulated in the digital darkroom. Pointless for negatives.

Again when shooting slides, the UV filter can sometimes reduce the effect of blue haze at high mountain elevations. When I tried it, the shot was ruined. Luckily I shot without the filter as well. It was the haze that gave the picture its depth and dimension. I also did the same thing with a polarizing filter, with even more horrid results. Again, I shot with and without so nothing was lost. In both cases, I was shooting slides. With negatives, the effect of the UV would be invisible, but the shot with Polarizer would not be recoverable. A UV is pretty much useless with negatives or digital.

For several decades, I carried ND filters, and I don't ever recall finding a use for them. Since I was working as a photojournalist, if I needed a longer exposure or a wider aperture, I could always go to a slower film. Not only did it give me what I wanted, but also provided a sharper and less grainy image. With digital, one can just dial in the ISO one wants, with an improvement in picture quality as well in most cases.

In fact, my problem was generally the opposite. I did not need less light, I almost always needed MORE! So far, no one has invented a light amplification filter, which would have really been handy.

If used well, as I indicated above, a Polarizer can be useful when shooting negatives as well as slides and digital. It can be used to saturate the colours of shiny non-metallic objects, render glass and water non- or semi-reflective, and darken the blue of the sky at some angles. Under some circumstances, it can also cut through atmospheric haze. If you really, really want to spend your money on a filter, and spend the time to learn it, this one is the most useful. It can also serve as a mild ND filter if you really need to get rid of some light. With a few exotic exceptions, it is the only filter that is actually useful with negatives and digital.

The exotic exceptions are things like filters with one half clear and the other half being neutral density. They can be used effectively for say, backlit architecture if the lines of the building are straight. They take extreme care and skill to use without totally wrecking the shot. It is necessary to find some way to hide the area where the crossover occurs. If it is visible, the shot looks hilarious. They are of no use with digital, since one can bracket exposures and layer the exposures together for a far better solution.

There are also coloured versions, and I have never seen a shot that was actually enhanced by these. A few film-makers were obsessed with them back in the 1970s, and the results were just awful! We must pause a moment in embarrassment for the mess they made, which is still being seen on TV reruns. Nothing looks more phony! I expect they want to sink through the floor when the see it in the TV listings again. Luckily, they came to their senses and dropped the effect after a very short while.

There are also effects filters, like starbursts and diffraction grating. On rare occasions, they might be useful if used with great taste with a subject that really demands it. Use it more than once, and you are shooting clich

Thanks for all of the information! I didn't realize that 81 series would be useless on negatives because of color balancing. Good information to have though. I do have a couple of polorizing filters for my 50mm lenses (f/1.8 and macro 50mm f/2.8) and they do seem to be pretty useful both for changing the contrast, enhancing colors, and eliminating reflections when they are unwanted.

I might just stick to a polorizing filter in each size that I need it in and call it a day unless I decide to start shooting slide film (which is unlikely). The only reasons why I can think that a ND filter could be useful is I like shooting rivers and waterfalls with long exposure times to get the softened effect it adds...but I can't do that in full day light. The slowest film speed I can easily get in 35mm around me is 100 speed, and in full day light with my f/3.5 (max f/22) 28-80mm lens or 135mm F/3.5 (max f/22) that only gets me about about a 1/30 second exposure if it is bright, so losing 4-6 f-stops of light could be useful on occasion to be able to do 1 to 1/2 second exposures in full day light (I don't often have the ability to head back when it is dusk or dawn). So one or two ND filters might still be in order some day.

Of course a light amplifying filter could really hit the spot

Thanks for all of your advice again.
-Matt

Quote:
The only reasons why I can think that a ND filter could be useful is I like shooting rivers and waterfalls with long exposure times to get the softened effect it adds...but I can't do that in full day light. -Matt

The first person who used a slow shutter speed on water, produced a moderately interesting effect. The bazillion people who copied, perpetuated a very tired clich