Quality of Filter Important?

[di0nysus]

I've tried googling and search CS, not much answers,

what differences are they between B+W and other brands, multi-coat vs non multi-coat etc... price can differ many folds!

experts please share! Thanks

 

[+evenstar]

I've tried googling and search CS, not much answers,

what differences are they between B+W and other brands, multi-coat vs non multi-coat etc... price can differ many folds!

experts please share! Thanks

Different brand, different quality. Low quality degrades your image quality by a fair bit, and better quality degrades less (but still degrades). If you're planning to get cheap ones, take them off before you shoot to get the best results from your lens.

 

[jnet6]

Just put the filters against white piece of paper, see wat u "effect" on the paper...
some yellowish/darker etc. gd like nikon filters 1 will let u have a same white paper colour.

 

[reflecx]

The answer is .... not much diff in terms of image quality. You can test yourself, mount on tripod, take 2 pictures, one with and another without the filter. See if you can tell the difference.

But people don't want to put a $20 filter on a $2000 lens mah, so they go for high class one.

 

[waileong]

The differences are

a. Colour cast-- expensive ones are truly neutral, will not introduce unwanted colour cast (eg ND filters)

b. Quality-- use of brass rings instead of aluminium, less chance of seizing up (and have to use filter wrench to remove)

c. Flare resistance-- the good ones (ie multicoated) will not cause flare.

d. Light transmission-- the good ones pass through more light than the inferior ones.

e. Durability-- good ones are made of glass which resist dirt and are easier to clean if dirty. Lousy ones are made of plastic, very difficult to keep clean. Hoya has this problem even for their HMC filters.

f. Scratch resistance-- good ones have strong coatings

g. Resale value-- good filters have good resale value, lousy ones have lousy resale value.

All the above said, be sure what you are using a filter for. With PS and digital, almost any effect can be simulated/created in PS, so there's practically no need for filters which rob sharpness and suck light. The only filters a digital user really needs are (i) polarizer (ii) IR (if you want to shoot IR) and (iii) ND8 (if you really want to open your shutter for a long time). Everything else, from 80A to 85C, K2 to O(G) can be simulated in PS.

Wai Leong
===

I've tried googling and search CS, not much answers,

what differences are they between B+W and other brands, multi-coat vs non multi-coat etc... price can differ many folds!

experts please share! Thanks

 

[di0nysus]

thanks all the input..i just wnat filter to protect the front element w/o jeopardising the quality of the pic..think shall settle for Hoya HMC...*edit* best will be B+W right?

 

[ricohflex]

thanks all the input..i just wnat filter to protect the front element w/o jeopardising the quality of the pic..think shall settle for Hoya HMC...next best will be B+W liao yeah?

B+W filter is better than Hoya HMC

 

[jnet6]

B+W filter is better than Hoya HMC

There is also nikon filters, UV=L37C or NC -for digital

 

[righton]

IF buying 2nd hand filters, what are the things to look out for aside from making sure that the glass is clean of scratches?

 

[user111]

buy cheap filter so that u dont have to worry much when they wear out as compared to expensive filter which will make u worry about wanting to take good care of it. filters are meant to take a beating and protect the real front lens element. so be more practical and skip the b+w. unless u prefer to be theoretical then by all means splurge on the b+w

 

[hyperFocal]

...
e. Durability-- good ones are made of glass which resist dirt and are easier to clean if dirty. Lousy ones are made of plastic, very difficult to keep clean. Hoya has this problem even for their HMC filters.
...
===

Now that you've mentioned that, yeah, I have a HOYA HMC UV filter with smears that I can get rid of... The B+Ws are the best!

 

[Denosha]

Whether or not you can see the difference with and without a filter also depends on the lens you're using. Lenses with more elements tend to suffer more image degradation with a filter on (there was some guide number i read somewhere but i can't remember what was it). For example, the image quality difference of my Bigma with and without the "cheap" non-coated hoya UV-filter is pretty noticeable. If your lens has a deep hood and u use it all the time, you probably could risk not using a uv filter. Just my $0.02.

 

[Heretix]

Well, this article sums up my POV pretty well: http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column66/

I shoot with 4 prime lenses, without any filters. Seriously, what Mike Johnston said is true, lenses are alot tougher than alot of us give it credit for. Just came back from a dusty 2 weeks in Beijing, and without a single scratch or whatever on the lenses, even on my 14mm, which has a 77mm filter size and which I used for most of my shooting.

So... quality of filter? Maybe you can consider the option of having no filters, if you have the balls.

Ok sidenote, I do have one filter that I use, and that's a polariser which I attach only when I feel I need it, never permanently attached.

 

[Virgo]

The answer is .... not much diff in terms of image quality. You can test yourself, mount on tripod, take 2 pictures, one with and another without the filter. See if you can tell the difference.

But people don't want to put a $20 filter on a $2000 lens mah, so they go for high class one.

Don't really agree with you reflecx bro. As what waileong has pointed out, there're many advantages of going with better grade filters.

Another advantage is that they're easier to clean, just to add to waileong's list.