Oops... Have been using junk filters on my lenses...

[FrozenRiver]

Tested my filters by following the method outlined in
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VRbW?start=10
(search for Tom Mann)

I have four filters: 1 Kenko Pro1D, 2 Vitacon, 1 Non-branded, which came as a free gift when I bought my Tamron 17-50 online. Only the Kenko filter passed the test (i.e. had minimal effect on the flare). All the other three turned to be junk, which, btw, means that they resulted in crazy flares as compared to when the filters were off.

Posting this here just in case some CSers had the same doubts as I did. Cheap filters basically ruin your money spent on expensive lenses... Or is that an exaggeration? Please enlighten me in case I am wrong.

 

[FrozenRiver]

I was referring to UV/clear protectors. Not ND or CPL.

Damn. I have to spend money again on clear filters...

 

[chiangkxv]

You can go filterless too.

 

[FrozenRiver]

You can go filterless too.

Thanks for your suggestion... I am too careless to enjoy shooting w/o filters...

 

[plato]

Yes I agree. A cheap filter is will degrade the results from
your expensive lens. Nowadays I only use B+W filters. It may sound like an extravagance, but the results are worth it.

 

[zac08]

Thanks for your suggestion... I am too careless to enjoy shooting w/o filters...

Does your front element protrude a lot??

Use a hood to protect if you want protection, it's much better than a filter.

 

[henry soh]

I don't use filter after daylight. It is a UV filter that cut off a stop of light, a waste.

 

[Yoricko]

Hi,

Even with a B+W Super Nano-crystal-diamond-flourescent-nautral-shin-coating* filter, it will still slightly affect your pictures.

It doesn't really 'degrade' your picture, but only makes your lens prone to more flare (all sorts).
For best image quality, you'll have to go commando. Usually with coated and multi-coated filters, there is no visible difference unless you are shooting under adverse conditions (like shooting against the sun to deliberately get your lens to flare, still very mild).

I'd still rather have a filter on my lens all the time even if it is just some no-brand-dollar filter made from plastic; I never put on my lens cap (or even bring with me) unless I don't plan to use the camera for a prolonged period of time, so I can just replace my filters if it gets dirty or damaged.

If you were to go filter-less, I'd recommend getting a small hood somewhere to prevent physical contact with the front element.

Regards,

 

[nonacyons]

I go filterless. UV filters serves no purpose through my years of using them. Infact they are more of a nuisance creating flares which damage a nice image.

For protection, a hood will still be the best bet.

 

[Octarine]

I don't use filter after daylight. It is a UV filter that cut off a stop of light, a waste.

UV filters cutting off 1 stop? :bigeyes: Guess you refer to CPL filters.

 

[Rashkae]

I don't use filter after daylight. It is a UV filter that cut off a stop of light, a waste.

Ah uncle. I think you're referring to CPL filters, which result in approx. 2 stops light loss.

UV filters do not result in any noticeable light loss.

I notice that a lot of your posts tend to be way off target... Maybe read up a bit more before posting?

 

[ghoonk]

Watch out for Matin filters as well. Bought my first DSLR in years back in Nov 10 (a D3100) and got a 35/1.8G with Matin filter. Flare and ghosting appeared in a number of pics where I had a light source (e.g. lamppost) ahead, and I thought it was normal. Picked up a Sigma filter and the flare was gone.

Lesson for me was not to cheap out too much on filters

That said, as long as I don't end up with flare/ghosting, it's good enough