Cheap filters?

Hi,

I don't mind spending bucks on a good polarizer, but: What are your thoughts on other filters (ND in this case)? Is a cheap one good to use? I mean – do you really see a difference between cheap & expensive?

I've seen a lot of 'arguments' about "why put cheap glass in front of your expensive lens"? On the other hand, I remember: during my times at photography college, a lot of rental lenses from the college shop were very scratched on the front element, yet you couldn't see that on the final print.

Our tutors & technicians said that the REAR element is a lot more important and less forgiving (in terms of scratches).

I believe cheap filters won't have any coating – but the lens has, so that should be enough, no?

--
Panoramas and more... http://www.bjornholland.com

This is the "Pro' forum. If this is where your query belongs, you should already know the answer.

I agree that your question indicates you're not a pro, but I can understand why you would ask it here. On many forums I see people recommending Cokin filter kits and suggesting people can get a good deal on filters from WalMart.

If IQ is important, my advice is to only use filters when absolutely necessary, and even then it is better to find times of day or lighting situation where you can avoid them. If, for example, you find you need a CP to cut glare during the mid-day sun around water, wait instead until the sun gets low, softens and glaire deminishes. That shot without a filter will be much better than one with a CP at mid-day.

Even some of the better filters degrade IQ slightly, though most would never notice. By all means, never stack them.

By the best you can afford. Hoya and BW are pretty good mid-range filters. Lee is probably most popular with pros.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger

Here is a good article about the perils of using a cheap ND filter:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/06/using-nd-filters-to-kill-depth-of-field.html

--
Curtis Clegg

Skipper494 either of these can apply.

“To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.”
-Charles de Montesquieu

“True humility is intelligent self respect which keeps us from thinking too highly or too meanly of ourselves. It makes us modest by reminding us how far we have come short of what we can be.”
-Ralph W. Sockman

Sorry for the double post

Skipper494: Thanks for being so incredibly helpful. Why don't you enlighten me with your wisdom instead of writing unhelpul posts? It's a waste of time for you and everyone else.

You might not believe it – but I am actually a pro, making a full-time living with photography. But that doesn't mean that I know everything about filters.

So... I don't know about you, but: when I don't know something, I go & ask the forum. And as there is no dedicated "lens" forum, and my question applies to ANY lens from ANY manufacturer and is about image quality, I think the Pro Forum is adequate.

Thanks for the link, Curtis! That's the sort of thing I was hoping for as an answer.

I read through the Strobist post, it comes down to 3 things:

• sharpness (important, of course – but he doesn't say how bad the sharpness went down)
• neutrality (not important I think, as I'm shooting RAW and can change color temp later)
• ND 3 stops. This is what Ihave from Hoya, but would like to move up to 10 stops. And they DO exist as cheap filters.

ND shots are only 1% (even less) of what I do... that's why I'm contemplating of getting a cheap one. Even if sharpness decreases by 10%, I think I could live with it quite comfortably... but not if it went down by more than that.

To categorize by shooting practice outdoor:

1) Shooting with polarizing filter......................... as often as possible.

2) Shooting without polarizing filter..................... sometimes (For example, if not
enough light etc.)
3) With cheap filter ......................................never.

Polarizing filter should not only be used in bright sun light, but all day long. Without bright sun the polarizer still has some affect to improve on your colors and correct exposure (You can make a simple test by pointing your camera at the tree with leaves in the early morning or late afternoon and by turning your polarizer you can se the glare disappearing from the leaves.)

Especially with DSLR you need the filter which is coated on both sides (digital sensor chip, opposite to classical film reflects light back through the lens,
and an uncoated filter reflects the glares back.)

Regarding the scratches on the lens is true is that the back of the lens creates much bigger problem than at the front element. Minor scratches on the front element might cost slight softness on the lens, but deep scratch or chip could cost glare.

Polarizing and ND can not be replaced by any software.

Paul

So, you have a shiny new $2400-$5400 DSLR and a $1000 f2.8 lens on it and now you ask if placing some average piece of glass in front of that matters? Of course it matters. Why would you intentionally degrade your optics and your investment to save $100?? Does not compute.

How much do you value your captures? If you don't, then don't worry about the cost of a filter. in fact don't use filters.
--
ABA DABA

If you want to save a few bucks but not skimp on optical quality, get your B+W filters from Maxsaver http://maxsaver.net/bw.aspx . They're genuine, but most have an aluminum alloy ring instead of solid brass. As long as you rotate the threads from time to time (and don't screw them down super tight), you shouldn't notice the difference.

I was a fan of filters, especially polorizing filters, during my film and slide days. I bought good ones (not the best) and used them more often than not.

But since going digital and being able to blow shots up 100 and 200 percent, I have backed off on their use. The effect they have on IQ is a double-edge sword: richer colors and less glare, but less sharpness and detail. It's a judgement call based upon intended use and how critical you want to be.

I always have polorizing, nutral density and graduated nutral density filters with me, just in case I get into a situation where I feel the plusses of usnig them outweigh the negatives.

Modern lenses are better as well. During the past few years, I've purchased two lenses (a 15mm and 100mm) that render images as if they had built in polorizers.

But cheap filters and stacking any filters is something I learned not to mess with decades ago, and I think it is even more true today.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger

I guess it depends on what lenses you have. If you have cheap "kit" lenses, then I guess a cheap filter is OK. If you have good aka expensive glass, why would you dimish the quality of a good lens with a cheap filter?

Be consistent with your gear.

btolley said:

I guess it depends on what lenses you have. If you have cheap "kit" lenses, then I guess a cheap filter is OK. If you have good aka expensive glass, why would you dimish the quality of a good lens with a cheap filter?

Be consistent with your gear.

Click to expand...

I think it's the opposite.

If you have a cheap kit lens, you don't have quality to spare. If you must use a filter, use a good one. With both a cheap lens and a cheap filter, your final quality will be unacceptable.

If you have an expensive pro lens, your quality should be fabulous. You can afford to use a cheap filter, and you will still have acceptable quality (about the same as a kit lens with no filter).

For 10 stops you have three choices I know of: Lee Big Stopper, B+W, and Heliopan. There may be others. The B+W has significant color cast. It's not just a white balance adjustment, it's a curves adjustment. I'm going to ditch it and use the Lee as soon as they can actually get them available (I've been waiting months now).

BSHolland said:

Thanks for the link, Curtis! That's the sort of thing I was hoping for as an answer.

I read through the Strobist post, it comes down to 3 things:

• sharpness (important, of course – but he doesn't say how bad the sharpness went down)
• neutrality (not important I think, as I'm shooting RAW and can change color temp later)
• ND 3 stops. This is what Ihave from Hoya, but would like to move up to 10 stops. And they DO exist as cheap filters.

ND shots are only 1% (even less) of what I do... that's why I'm contemplating of getting a cheap one. Even if sharpness decreases by 10%, I think I could live with it quite comfortably... but not if it went down by more than that.

Click to expand...