cwatgo1970
Member
In pretend, but if I were a formidable dictator with absolute world (007 villain type) power, I might would make it law that no photo could be published or posted with any added technical information about the type of lens, camera, film, and chemistry, used to create the image for a period of one year. During that year, I would enjoy seeing just how many people could accurately discern such information and details from an image by merely looking at it. Some of the very brand of lenses (Ektars & Ilex) that were used by Ansel Adams in several of his marvelous creations were mere lens fodder on eBay (selling in the two digit price range) before it came into public knowledge that he had used them. One might be surprised just what can be achieved with most types of camera gear when they fully master how to use it correctly.
Last edited:
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I have, at least between non or single coated filters versus multi-coated ones. I think it's the multi-coating that makes expensive filters so expensive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Those of you who do see differences between cheap and expensive filters: where? Not resolution, surely (all that Ctein and I formally tested, on separate occasions). Flare? I guess I'll have to set up formal tests for that too.
Most of my Leica filters are Leica or B+W, but for Nikon I have all sorts -- and I have yet to see consistent differences.
Of course I accept that I may not be seeing them because I don't expect to see them, and therefore ignore them, but by the same token, I strongly suspect that there are others who see differences that aren't there. I'm not impugning the people who responded above, just making a general observation. That's why I'd like to know who's seeing what, so I can try to test it.
As for filter prices, my Leica-fit lenses alone take 39mm, 46mm, 49mm, 52mm, 55mm, 60mm and Series VII, at least (can't remember for the 135/2.8). At $50-$100/filter, 3 filters per size, that's $1500-$2500. Which is why I don't have full sets of filters (or even 3 filters) in most sizes...
Cheers,
Roger
Most of my Leica filters are Leica or B+W, but for Nikon I have all sorts -- and I have yet to see consistent differences.
Of course I accept that I may not be seeing them because I don't expect to see them, and therefore ignore them, but by the same token, I strongly suspect that there are others who see differences that aren't there. I'm not impugning the people who responded above, just making a general observation. That's why I'd like to know who's seeing what, so I can try to test it.
As for filter prices, my Leica-fit lenses alone take 39mm, 46mm, 49mm, 52mm, 55mm, 60mm and Series VII, at least (can't remember for the 135/2.8). At $50-$100/filter, 3 filters per size, that's $1500-$2500. Which is why I don't have full sets of filters (or even 3 filters) in most sizes...
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I've got a fairly decent collection of 39mm filters as well as a bunch of 58mm filters from back in the days when we all shot color transparencies. Some were bought second hand. Those that are coated are most likely single coated. Some are Leitz, some Tiffen, Hoya, Ednalite, Spiratone, etc. The marketing people had yet to discover that it was possible to sell a filter smaller than perhaps 86mm for $100. It was more important to get the color right than to be worried about absolute sharpness on a magazine page, where you couldn't see the difference anyway.
photogdave
Shops local
I've tested cheap filters ie. Tamron and Hoya. They noticeably obscure the fine detail compared to higher quality filters like Heliopan and B+W.
This is not using test charts but shooting real world pictures of subjects like signs that have text and fine detail.
I've done this at various times throughout the years to make sure nothing has changed!
historicist
Well-known
Well, I would have been on the good glass/cheap body side, but recently I got a Bessa R to use alongside my M4. Great finder, but it jammed almost as soon as I got it, and I had to take it apart to fix it. Fairly simple, but things like the strap lugs being positioned so that the camera always want's to flip upside down spoiled the experience somewhat.
Compared to the Bessa, the M4, not a paragon of reliability itself with a cheap lens would be the best way to go, in my opinion. Plus, it feels so much better in the hand.
Compared to the Bessa, the M4, not a paragon of reliability itself with a cheap lens would be the best way to go, in my opinion. Plus, it feels so much better in the hand.
yanidel
Well-known
My Industar 69 is the one lens I would never sell due to its unique characteristics that I particularly like for my taste. Sharper than the VC28mm Ultron, close to the VC25mm but less than the 35mm Summicron.
It cost me $20, compared to $600 for the VC28mm and $1000 for the Summicron. Looking at the many pictures I took with it during my last trip, I find them better than most of the one taken with the more expensive ones, including Leica.
This in the end matters more than the brand.
It cost me $20, compared to $600 for the VC28mm and $1000 for the Summicron. Looking at the many pictures I took with it during my last trip, I find them better than most of the one taken with the more expensive ones, including Leica.
This in the end matters more than the brand.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Maybe if you never shoot digital you don't understand the superiority of multi-coated lenses. When you have a digital sensor, it will tend to reflect back out the lens; if your filter is not multi-coated, then it will cause ghosting on a digital camera. This is very real and I, and many others, have seen it many times.
Then again, do you own a Leica? And you honestly are coming here asking if we can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive filters? Why not just take the conversation to its logical extreme and start asking if Leica users can tell the difference. Or if Zeiss lenses are really better than Leica. Or Canon. Start a Canon vs. Nikon debate while you're at it. Or, hell, aks if we wouldn't all be better off shooting Holgas!
But I almost never use filters for film, and the few times that I have I used the expensive multi-coated filters I already own. So . . . I guess I can't say for sure beyond the one or two cheap filters I bought early on in my photography that ghosted and flared on my digital sensor, driving me to the more expensive stuff.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Where do I start?
Yes, I own Leicas. I've been using them for about 40 years. I currently use M8.2, M8, MP, M4-2 (all from new) and 2x M2. Over the years I've had quite a lot of others. Also, I have several Leica-fit lenses: currently 15, 18, 21 (x2), 28, 35 (x3), 50 (x several), 75, 90 (x2), 135, from Leica, Voigtländer and Zeiss. Most are from new. That's apart from the ones I get for review. And yes, I'm honestly coming here to ask what difference you see between cheap and expensive filters. Otherwise I'd not have asked.
I have written for the photographic press for the last 30 years or so, including lots of books; visit my site to see a list of them. I've also formally tested filters to see if they have any effect on resolution (bear in mind what I do for a living -- I get paid to do tests like this), and short of using window glass, have found no loss of resolution with different filter quality using resolution charts, film and lenses in the 35-90mm range. I've not tested wider lenses or longer, though theoretically, longer lenses may be more sensitive to filter quality. Ctein, a better experimentalist than I, has found exactly the same thing. Because I've tested only for resolution, I was asking what people had seen which leads them to believe that cheap filters are inferior.
You, on your own admission, "can't say for sure beyond the one or two cheap filters I bought early on in my photography that ghosted and flared on my digital sensor." In other words, you have almost no experience and you haven't conducted any formal (or even informal) tests. Can you provide an example of this 'ghosting'? Veiling flare, I can just about believe. Images of the diaphragm, conceivably. But 'ghosting' in the sense of a secondary image, I find hard to believe. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
As for the rest of your post, about Zeiss and Leica and Nikon, this is nothing to do with the question I asked, but I'll address your concerns anyway.
My own belief -- based on over 35 years of professional work and over 40 years since I started as an amateur -- is that there is a 'quality plateau'. Above it, the camera (or filter, or lens) makes a minimal technical difference: the photographer matters more. Below it, a better camera or lens will make a difference.
The 'quality plateau' is incredibly low, but some cameras and lenses (e.g. Prakticas fitted with Primoplans) fell well below it when new. Others are below it after decades of use/abuse: some of my Pentax lenses aren't too impressive, though others are excellent.
The 'quality plateau' moves steadily but slowly upwards as the photographer gets better, until it reaches a point where all that really matters is that you're happy with the camera: you could use any one of a dozen or more cameras and get good results, but you'll get the best pictures with the ones you're happiest with.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
In flare terms there is a very noticeable difference between cheap uncoated filters and quality MRC (for example) filters. Resolution comes for free with quality filters, when my real reason for buying them is that I don't want flare issues. This is particularly an issue with RF cameras as one cannot look thru the lens. I don't doubt that cheaper uncoated filters do just fine from a resolution perspective. My cheapo Jessops filters are fine and never give me cause for concern.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks. This is the sort of information I was looking for.
I'll have to set up some flare tests. Fortunately I can do that with digital, so it's quick-'n'-easy. All I have to do is get around to it. Are you talking mainly about veiling flare or diaphragm-image flare?
Actually, I don't think I have many uncoated filters; they really are quite rare nowadays, except among plastic 'system' filters or (of course) very old filters.
Cheers,
R.
Turtle
Veteran
Roger,
I have noticed a bit of both, but veiling flare more so (I am in Afghanistan which likely does not help). It has been a while since I used cheap uncoated filters and so i cannot talk about current issues fresh in my mind. This was on my Canon SLR EOS kit. I had a Tiffen plain glass UV filter (hideous build quality too) and that seem to reduce overall image contrast somewhat and I got enough flare shooting into the sun that I lost confidence using it (to keep dust and grim off the front element) and took it off.
I took the plunge of buying to the B&W system after experimenting with Hoya MC filters. I had read horror stories about the coating being very delicate (although I am careful) and the binding issues I experienced personally. In the end i decided to go for B&W MRC with my two expanding rangefinder kits (Leica and mamiya 7) so I would have peace of mind that I had done all I can. Prices were not that much more, the range was broader and more available in stock at B&H and so it made sense. The mamiya lenses are very flare resistant and so are the ZMs I predominantly use on the Leica, so I cannot be sure that my lack of flare issues are down to the MRC filters, but I can say i dont have problems and point my camera wherever I like without concern (and here that is saying something). I have had a touch of flare here and there, but extremely rarely. The MRC filters also feel substantial, clean up nicely and, according to reports, have a genuinely tough coating. Mine get regularly cleaned and look good as new. I still use the hoya MC filters as I am not daft enough to replace them when they work fine. I have shots from my 70-200 f4L shot at f5.6-8 into bright Afghan landscapes that make my eyes pop at the sharpness. Resolution is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I have not used $2 filters, so cannot comment on them, but I think it is clear that, as you say, a half decent filter, including uncoated Hoyas (and I think this is what the jessops ones are) do not affect resolution that I can see. If there is a difference, it just does not matter a bit to me because it is well beyond 'what matters in the real world.'
As an aside, one thing that is interesting is that i took my Jessops yellow and held it over a white piece of paper and concluded that the deepness was about identical - they looked indistinguishable. however, held up and looking at a scene, the visual image looked noticeably more contrasty from the B&W. try it! I thought my eyes were playing tricks, but the same was very obvious with the orange too. I do not know if this is due to veiling flare from the uncoated filter or not, but my eyes see a clear difference. Maybe I am just going mad.
There are other considerations when it comes to 'cheap glass'. CV makes tiny wide angle LTM/M lenses. Leica does not. This matters when it comes to portability and handling. Portabilty and handing translates into shots taken. That matters. in outright terms the Leica and ZM lenses are better in many cases, but Leica has nothing to compete in size and weight with the CV 21/25. If you get a good copy, happy days. Carry it at 140g and dig it out when you need it. One of my favourite shots (boy in rain outside King's palace) in my gallery section was shot on a 'budget lens'. If I had not bought the CV, it would never have happened.
I have noticed a bit of both, but veiling flare more so (I am in Afghanistan which likely does not help). It has been a while since I used cheap uncoated filters and so i cannot talk about current issues fresh in my mind. This was on my Canon SLR EOS kit. I had a Tiffen plain glass UV filter (hideous build quality too) and that seem to reduce overall image contrast somewhat and I got enough flare shooting into the sun that I lost confidence using it (to keep dust and grim off the front element) and took it off.
I took the plunge of buying to the B&W system after experimenting with Hoya MC filters. I had read horror stories about the coating being very delicate (although I am careful) and the binding issues I experienced personally. In the end i decided to go for B&W MRC with my two expanding rangefinder kits (Leica and mamiya 7) so I would have peace of mind that I had done all I can. Prices were not that much more, the range was broader and more available in stock at B&H and so it made sense. The mamiya lenses are very flare resistant and so are the ZMs I predominantly use on the Leica, so I cannot be sure that my lack of flare issues are down to the MRC filters, but I can say i dont have problems and point my camera wherever I like without concern (and here that is saying something). I have had a touch of flare here and there, but extremely rarely. The MRC filters also feel substantial, clean up nicely and, according to reports, have a genuinely tough coating. Mine get regularly cleaned and look good as new. I still use the hoya MC filters as I am not daft enough to replace them when they work fine. I have shots from my 70-200 f4L shot at f5.6-8 into bright Afghan landscapes that make my eyes pop at the sharpness. Resolution is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I have not used $2 filters, so cannot comment on them, but I think it is clear that, as you say, a half decent filter, including uncoated Hoyas (and I think this is what the jessops ones are) do not affect resolution that I can see. If there is a difference, it just does not matter a bit to me because it is well beyond 'what matters in the real world.'
As an aside, one thing that is interesting is that i took my Jessops yellow and held it over a white piece of paper and concluded that the deepness was about identical - they looked indistinguishable. however, held up and looking at a scene, the visual image looked noticeably more contrasty from the B&W. try it! I thought my eyes were playing tricks, but the same was very obvious with the orange too. I do not know if this is due to veiling flare from the uncoated filter or not, but my eyes see a clear difference. Maybe I am just going mad.
There are other considerations when it comes to 'cheap glass'. CV makes tiny wide angle LTM/M lenses. Leica does not. This matters when it comes to portability and handling. Portabilty and handing translates into shots taken. That matters. in outright terms the Leica and ZM lenses are better in many cases, but Leica has nothing to compete in size and weight with the CV 21/25. If you get a good copy, happy days. Carry it at 140g and dig it out when you need it. One of my favourite shots (boy in rain outside King's palace) in my gallery section was shot on a 'budget lens'. If I had not bought the CV, it would never have happened.
amateriat
We're all light!
iCaramba...!
While I've never been one into excessive "cheaping out", I don't (and have rarely been albe to, at any rate) go for the "best" just because it was there. Long-term value for money rules in this household.
When I decided to ditch SLRs for RFs as my principal shootin' iron, I had what, at the time, was the Goldilocks choice: on the "top end", spend a given amount of money (say, about $3000-3500) on a given modern Leica body (likely new, since the only body I was truly interested in at the time was the M7) and, maybe, a used 50 Summicron. On the "bottom end", wait for the then-upcoming Bessa R2, get a pair of those, and a passel of CV glass (squeezing a 35 f/1.2 somewhere in the list). In the middle was the Hexar RF and a small but highly-praised lens collection. I was already smitten with the Hex autofocus, so between that and the fact that I could build an entire system (two Hex bodies, 28, 50 and 90 glass, and a small Konica flash, all new with a 3-year warranty on everything) for a tad more than the price of that new M7 and used Summi, the decision was a true no-brainer. Any (ab)use the bodies and lenses have endured in the seven years I've owned and used the system has been entirely at my hands. And, while I love Leicas, to lightly paraphrase John Fogerty, I haven't lost a minute's sleep about what "might have been."
You need to think a bit about what you need to do what you want to do, get it, learn it, and stick with it, until you're certain it's not The Answer.
Edit: My philosophy on filters was shaped a long time ago by a Camera 35 profile of Ernst Haas, whom, when asked generally about his choice of gear, said that aside from the occasional polarizer, he didn't use any filters. That's how I've worked ever since.
- Barrett
While I've never been one into excessive "cheaping out", I don't (and have rarely been albe to, at any rate) go for the "best" just because it was there. Long-term value for money rules in this household.
When I decided to ditch SLRs for RFs as my principal shootin' iron, I had what, at the time, was the Goldilocks choice: on the "top end", spend a given amount of money (say, about $3000-3500) on a given modern Leica body (likely new, since the only body I was truly interested in at the time was the M7) and, maybe, a used 50 Summicron. On the "bottom end", wait for the then-upcoming Bessa R2, get a pair of those, and a passel of CV glass (squeezing a 35 f/1.2 somewhere in the list). In the middle was the Hexar RF and a small but highly-praised lens collection. I was already smitten with the Hex autofocus, so between that and the fact that I could build an entire system (two Hex bodies, 28, 50 and 90 glass, and a small Konica flash, all new with a 3-year warranty on everything) for a tad more than the price of that new M7 and used Summi, the decision was a true no-brainer. Any (ab)use the bodies and lenses have endured in the seven years I've owned and used the system has been entirely at my hands. And, while I love Leicas, to lightly paraphrase John Fogerty, I haven't lost a minute's sleep about what "might have been."
You need to think a bit about what you need to do what you want to do, get it, learn it, and stick with it, until you're certain it's not The Answer.
Edit: My philosophy on filters was shaped a long time ago by a Camera 35 profile of Ernst Haas, whom, when asked generally about his choice of gear, said that aside from the occasional polarizer, he didn't use any filters. That's how I've worked ever since.
- Barrett
Last edited:
gutguido
Member
Hi Tom. Have you worked with / seen what this lens can do? I'm curious! Cheers.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Cut and numbered for ease of reply: hope you don't mind the 'editing'.
(1) Thanks for the specifics.
(2) Exactly. Without formal testing, shooting the same scene with and without a filter, you can't tell. Most of us (including you and I) have better things to do, but equally, I did the original resolution-only tests to see if what 'everyone knew' about resolution was true. It wasn't. You have encouraged me to try further tests on this one. If I can get someone to pay me for doing it.
(3) Quite -- though I do have some Soviet-era 40.5 and 58mm filters, bought in Moscow for kopecks rather than roubles in the dying days of the Soviet Union. I use the 40.5s on my 100/5.6 Apo-Symmar and have never noticed any problems, but then, I always use lens shades: maybe those who have real flare problems don't?
(4) This is intriguing. As you say, it could be loss of contrast from flare, or (and this is just a thought) it could be something to do with the spectral transmission of the filters and the sensitivity of the eye. Colours that look the same, after all, may actually be made up of quite different mixtures of wavelengths.
(5) We are of one mind on this, not least because every Voigtländer lens I've had (including the 21/4) has been well above the 'quality threshold' I described in an earlier post. I have the Voigtländer and a Kobalux f/2.8 and I have reviewed the Zeiss 21/2.8 and the current Zeiss 21/4.5; in the past, I had two earlier Zeiss 21/4.5s. I also had a pre-aspheric Leica 21/2.8 (stolen in Moscow) and I've reviewed the 16-18-21 Tri-Emar. Yes, I can see differences between the image qualities of these lenses, but these are trivial compared with my own skill or lack of it as a photgrapher. The lens you have, the lens you take pictures with, is always a better idea than the dream lens you can't afford or can't justify or can't get in your camera bag or are too scared to use because it's so valuable.
Finally, yes, most of my filters for Leica lenses are indeed Leitz or B+W, but this is partly for build quality and 'feel' and partly because I can justify them on the business: there is not much sense in using inferior filters on lenses I ue all the time. But every now and then I get lenses for review that take filter sizes I don't have in B+W/Leica, and I'm not going to go out and spend $100 on a filter for a lens I don't own, so I use whatever I have lying around (which is lots, built up over the last 40+ years, with plenty of stepping rings too). I don't see any quality loss when I do this. But as I say, I always use a shade.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
Roger, I rarely use hoods on my M mount lenses, which is generally due to a lens storage issue when hopping on and off cameras while shooting and also their physical size. I find I dont really need them with the lenses I currently use. My mamiya 7 lenses move a lot less frequently, tend to go into a bag and generally see fewer filter changes (with more time in hand when they do) and so always have their hoods on. This means I can stand them on their nose and dont bother with front caps, aiding speed. With my eos fit zooms, they always have hoods on for good reason!
I would use shades on my M if they did not make the lenses so much longer. really affects how easily I can slip the camera under my coat.
I would use shades on my M if they did not make the lenses so much longer. really affects how easily I can slip the camera under my coat.
swatch
Established
what is more important of rangefinder to me is viewfinder with clear patch and useful frame lines .... lens can be used / tested / traded more often and easier to sell in 2nd hand market. If necessary I will buy cheaper lens i.e. Elmar 50mm instead of Summilux 50mm ... and put money on a MP.
tyrone.s
Well-known
I'm with the idea about 'quality plateau'. I can't imagine any rangefinder lens that you can buy new today that is either a.) cheap or b.) bad. Oh, sure there may be lenses that we don't like, but ...
Even when one looks over the huge run of 50 mm lenses that have been made over the past 50 years - really how many 'dogs' are there? And are these dog's 'dog's' because they are cheap or just because they were rubbish, compromised designs, or whatver? Realise of course that market price and quality are not necessarily perfectly related - there's a lot of 'what the market will bear' at work. However I'm sure there are many users who don't or can't use their lenses to the best of the lenses' ability (and I've been guilty of this as I've learned about photography over the years - shooting wide open @f2 when I could have got away with f8 and actually been able to enlarge that once-in-a-lifetime photo comes to mind).
Of course some will say that my idea of cheap and their idea will differ (and hey, I don't want to get into a *measuring contest* here ;-)- but if you acknowledge that a $4.00 disposable camera is 'cheap' then no rangefinder lens is cheap and it is actually impossible to 'cheap out on the lenses'.
Aesthetically speaking, if one did cheap out on the lenses and we, looking at the cheap lens photos, wanted to critique the results; where would we start? With the intention (or lack thereof), the composition, the resolution, the grain, the micro-detail, the bokeh, the use of a filter or not, the ...? I ask this question because looking at my own body of work, I know that lenses are the least of my problems.
Even when one looks over the huge run of 50 mm lenses that have been made over the past 50 years - really how many 'dogs' are there? And are these dog's 'dog's' because they are cheap or just because they were rubbish, compromised designs, or whatver? Realise of course that market price and quality are not necessarily perfectly related - there's a lot of 'what the market will bear' at work. However I'm sure there are many users who don't or can't use their lenses to the best of the lenses' ability (and I've been guilty of this as I've learned about photography over the years - shooting wide open @f2 when I could have got away with f8 and actually been able to enlarge that once-in-a-lifetime photo comes to mind).
Of course some will say that my idea of cheap and their idea will differ (and hey, I don't want to get into a *measuring contest* here ;-)- but if you acknowledge that a $4.00 disposable camera is 'cheap' then no rangefinder lens is cheap and it is actually impossible to 'cheap out on the lenses'.
Aesthetically speaking, if one did cheap out on the lenses and we, looking at the cheap lens photos, wanted to critique the results; where would we start? With the intention (or lack thereof), the composition, the resolution, the grain, the micro-detail, the bokeh, the use of a filter or not, the ...? I ask this question because looking at my own body of work, I know that lenses are the least of my problems.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm not sure you will ever convince someone who just paid $3,000 for a lens that even your 12 year old neighbor can't see a significant difference in prints from that lens and one shot with a $300 lens. Not to say there aren't differences. Just that unless prints from both lenses are blown up significantly and placed side-by-side, few if any people will know the difference. More significantly to me, nobody in the real world who has looked at my photos has actually asked me what brand of lens I shot it with or how much it cost. They either liked it or thought it sucked for many other reasons.