2nd October 2003, 08:45 PM
How important is the quality of UV/Skylight filters that you fit on your lenses?
I used to think of them as mere protection filters and hence buy the cheapest ones to cut costs.
Vitacons are very cheap compared to HOYA and I heard B+W is even more costly.
But does the brand and the quality of filter glass really make a difference in the pictures you take???
Like HMC or even Super HMC Vs the 'normal' UV, or the MRC coating..etc
I once read a article that your lens is only as good as the Worst element, meaning it only take 1 poor piece of glass on to degrade the picture quality and that filters on the lenses are like a part of the lens element.
Any experienced or professional photographers are to comment?
Do you have experience of using a Brand new, unscratched But cheapo and un-coated filter and did not get good results (flare....or whatever) and changed the filter to a better one and got better colors or results.
I am not sure if I should pay more $$ for Multi-coated ones Vs UV filters if they did not make a difference.
2nd October 2003, 09:57 PM
Hi Winston. I bought the cheapo one, then if found problem, change a better one lor. Like that you only lose the first cheap investment. But if you go for the exp one first, but later find that for your usage, not difference, then you lost a bomb. agree?
2nd October 2003, 10:10 PM
Really depends on the brand I guess. On some lenses it causes flares etc. In others its fine. If its giving problems, get a new one.
If don't want to waste money then just invest in a good one form the start if you can afford it. If not slowly upgrade....
4th October 2003, 11:41 PM
5th October 2003, 12:35 AM
5th October 2003, 01:24 AM
i am not too sure cause i hav been using B+W filters all this while nothing to compare of......i heard that rodenstock is not bad too.
5th October 2003, 01:29 AM
My sentiments exactly.
Originally Posted by kex
5th October 2003, 07:53 AM
some cheap filters can cause flare to occur...