Filters...how fussy are you?

[Dave Wilkinson]

O.K. - you have the finest lenses money can buy for your cameras, or at least the finest you can afford!, but when it comes to filters - what will you stick on the front of 'em ?. Some folks will fit nothing but the most expensive filters and are paranoid about degrading image quality, others will happily screw on anything that is clean, and not scratched to heck!. Personally, over the years - I have used everything from plastic 'Cokin' types and cheapo Chinese offerings, to the finest available, but have never really noticed a dramatic decrease in picture quality with any, but then it's not very often that I have made a really big print that has needed the use of a filter.
How about you? - are you a filter snob - or like me, don't take much notice of them?.
Cheers, Dave.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Filters are located to close to the front lens element to really effect the quality. And I've made big prints with everything from cheap filters to expensive B&W filters. There may be some advantage to coated filters over uncoated filters, but I've not had any problem there, either. Non issue, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ferider]

I guess I'm a filter snob. I use filters to avoid water and salt goop on front elements. So I get filters that are easy to clean, which happen to be B+W + Hoya HMC. Optically, filter price doesn't make much difference, IMO, unless you are shooting against light in the dark.

 

[Graham Line]

Mostly use Nikons or B+W, maybe some Heliopans.
Cheap mounts tend to get stuck, which is annoying, or fall apart, which is annoying. Particularly with polarizers and color correction, better quality filters are more consistent and tend not to fade. Plastic and resin are nice for one-time needs but some scratch very easily.
I have found a loss of resolution and contrast with some off-brands, and it isn't hard to find decent used good 'uns. What's $40 over a 20-year life?
Problem is, price is not necessarily a guarantee of quality.

 

[sevo]

I confess to owning four sizes of multicoated B+W light red - but that is my mainstay black and white filter, and I depend on all of them acting similar. The other filters are a mixed bag - many gels, many filters that came with a lens and quite a few that were bought for a one-off job with strange lighting. Can't say that I really care - I tossed the bad or unreliable ones and whatever is left has never destroyed a picture, so I tend to trust them, brand or none...

 

[Mablo]

I have a dozen or so different 52mm Heliopan filters which are good enough for me. For TLR's I have a small set of Rollei's Bay 1 filters and a Bay 1 to 52mm adapter. I use filters quite regularly during sommer months.

 

[ZeissFan]

I have a lot of filters. Many are older Zeiss Ikon filters in 40.5mm size. Others are for specific cameras. I also have several B+W filters that I bought in the 1970s.

I also have a number of Marumi UV filters, again in 40.5mm size. A few years ago, I bought a bunch of older Mamiya-brand filters in 43mm and 46mm.

And I have several specialist (infrared 092) filters from B+W that were costly.

Overall, I also tend to agree that except for the cheapest filters, I haven't noticed degradation of image quality from using a Vivitar-branded filter vs. a B+W-branded one.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Test 'em.

See if you can see a difference.

I've never met anyone who has demonstrated any objective difference using test charts. I had to use window glass in order to get detectable image degradation, at least in resolution.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

I buy used filters on eBay. I only buy them if they're dead cheap. If I find they are scratched when they arrive, I discard them. Otherwise, I clean them up and use them. I have a couple high-end B+W filters, and frankly, they seem the same to me as the low-end Tiffins and etc. So I don't obsess over filters.

 

[nikon_sam]

How about a semi-snob...I try for the name brand filters...Nikon, B+W, Tiffen, Vivitar Series 1, and others...I know of others that cost more but these brands work for me...

 

[Makten]

Filters are located to close to the front lens element to really effect the quality.

Depends on what "quality" you're speaking of. Filters with bad coatings DO really give problems with flares and ghosting sometimes. Especially for those of us shooting digital, since the sensor reflects more light than film.

I never use filters if I don't have to, because of this.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

I always want Leica or B&W brand, but only at about half the price, so second hand anyhow.

 

[oftheherd]

I first got Hoya as an acquaintace who was going to Japan from Korea, agreed to get me a set of filters. That was nearly 35 years ago. I still have them and still use them. Since then I have gotten pretty much what was available or I just stumbled across. I've used them on SLR, TLR (with step up adapters), and RF (Super Press 23, only one for the 40.5 for my Kiev). I have never tested with more expensive lenses, nor really, even those I have. But I never got any photos that I could say I could notice any degradation from using the filters.

The above has been my reason for not trying to buy really expensive filters.

 

[peter_n]

I'm a snob. B+W for me. 😱

 

[Al Kaplan]

About the only real complaint expressed so far is that "cheap filters stick". Rub some candle wax on the threads to make 'em slippery.

 

[pakeha]

All mine have come from `photo stuff' auctions , then i onsell the the flashbulbs,rubber hoods etc on a `photo stuff' auction, so far all have been free😀 . Even got Bay 1 filters and hood this way. 40.5mm a bit hard to come by so i have just finished 1st roll with a DIY filter holder made from mamiya 330 hood made to hold Kodak filters, should work, nothing lost if it does not.

 

[peterm1]

On a couple of occasions recently when I have bought upmarket pro lenses for my Nikon DSLR I have allowed myself to be convinced by the salesperson of the benefits of buying a top of the range (Hoya) multicoated filter at well over a hundred bucks (82mm filters are pricey.) But I do not think they make a noticeable difference and will not go down this route in future.

 

[narsuitus]

I rarely use filters but when I need them, I use them. If I need to use a filter, I am more likely to need it when I am shooting film vs. digital. The last time I used a filter was when I was doing some infrared photography last summer.

Most of my color correction filters are acetate. However, the filters that I use most often (polarizing, neutral density, graduated neutral density, and special effect) are high quality or medium quality glass. I also have two plastic (Cokin) filters that I use.

Once, I was a firm believer in protecting my lenses with UV/Haze filters until I saw the results of a test I was conducting between two 35mm high-resolution black & white films (H&W Control VTE film and Kodak High Contrast Copy film). In order to obtain maximum sharpness, I shot with the mirror locked up and without a UV/Haze filter. During the test, I just happened to also take some shots with the mirror locked up and the UV/Haze filter on the lens. That is when I noticed that at a 16x20 inch enlargement; even a high-quality UV/Haze filter caused some loss of image quality. Since then, I only use protective UV/haze filters when I need to reduce UV light (such as when shooting at high altitudes or in snow) or when I am shooting in a hostile environment where my lens needs to be protected from damage (such as when shooting in a storm or when shooting in an industrial plant or when shooting at a race track).

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have never noticed any difference between the B&W's I have and the cheapest Tiffen or Hoya's. I use UV's on most all lenses and black & white filters as needed.