Filters

[Curos]

Im thinking about ordering a few basic filters for my digital rebel. Any advice on a few basic filters for outdoor, low light, bright light, or macro shooting?

[robertwgross]

For outdoor skies and clouds, all you need is a circular polarizer filter.

---Bob Gross---

[PhotosGuy]

I recommend a UV (skylight) filter. Clean your lens & filter, put the filter on & never take it off.

[Curos]

leave the uv on...then will the polarizor work on top? or...explain.

[PhotosGuy]

leave the uv on...then will the polarizor work on top?

Yes. Check at full wide angle while you're stopped down to minimum aperature (f-22, etc) to see if you have any cut-off at the pic edges with both filters on.

[Sendide]

how about only a circulariser polarizer, don't the super thin multicoated ones play the role of UV filter as well, plus you don't stuck more than one on the top of your lens; which than one knowlegeble guy in this forum recommended me to avoid that !(avoid vigneting I've been told).
regards
Khalid

[dsze]

I have a questions about UV filters. I've always put a basic UV filter on all of my cameras and my video cameras. It just adds a little sense of protection.

But....what is the difference between a $150 UV filter and a $20 UV Filter?

-daniel

[PhotosGuy]

how about only a circulariser polarizer...

You could if you don't mind losing an f-stop or so of speed. There are times though, when you don't want to cut reflections. For instance, reflections are what define a cars body. Blue water might become an ugly brown when you cut the reflection from a blue sky.

And, one reason for putting a UV filter on the lens is to protect it by providing a cheap surface to clean that isn't your expensive front lens coating. An expensive polarizer for each lens isn't a cheap solution.

[Liang]

What does UV filter for?

[Pekka]

http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv

[CoolToolGuy]

There are times though, when you don't want to cut reflections. For instance, reflections are what define a cars body. Blue water might become an ugly brown when you cut the reflection from a blue sky.


I beg to differ - the polarizer reduces glare, and glare causes surfaces (including cars) to look silvery. A polarizer will reveal the true color of the car's body and allow the shadowing to determine the shape, and the polarizer allows you to 'see' through the windows. As for water, it depends on what your perspective is. If you are taking a scenic picture of a lake, the polarizer (just like the car example) will reduce the glare and cause the lake to look more blue from the reflection of the sky (given a clear day). If you are shooting directly down into the water (like trying to photograph a fish), it is more likely to reveal the true color of the water (which may be brown).

That may sound slightly confusing, but glare and reflections are not the same thing. Refer to the link that Pekka posted above, and scroll down to the section on polarizers.

Have Fun,

[PhotosGuy]

A polarizer will reveal the true color of the car's body and allow the shadowing to determine the shape, and the polarizer allows you to 'see' through the windows.

OK, we're looking at 2 different kinds of pics here; "Nuts&Bolts" vs. "Romance".

Ad guys representing the (formerly) "Big 3" who buy car photography want romance pics. We positioned the car to get the reflections that we wanted and would never use a polarizer to cut reflections.

Bottom line, Curos, is that there is no really cut & dried answer for you. Get one, try it out in different situations, & form your own opinion based on what it does for the type of pics that you take. Only you know what's right for you. :wink:

[Johnnynf]

But....what is the difference between a $150 UV filter and a $20 UV Filter?


I was going to start a new thread on this in the near future, but since this one is already started, I will ask my questions here instead.

Like the original poster on this thread, I am looking to buy some basic filters for my 28-135 IS lens. I have already decided to get a UV filter and a circular polarizer. But, as the quote above eludes to, I am totally lost as to what brands are good. I mean, B and H has a Canon brand UV filter for $30 and a B & W UV filter for $134. What is the difference between these. Is there a specific type that is better than others? A certain type of glass I am looking for?

Same thing with the circular polarizers. A "general brand" polarizer costs $54 while a Heliopan costs $377. That is a huge difference. What accounts for this difference.

Another one of my major (and costly) hobbies is home theater. It amazes me that some people will be duped into buying speaker wire at $2 a foot or more when a strand of speaker wire from Home Depot at $.35 a foot will do the exact same thing. Is this the case with filters too?

My local dealer sells Promaster filters. What quality are they? I would like to get both the UV filter and Polarizer for $100 or under...what should I be looking at. I know, this isn't the greatest price in the world, but it should be sufficient for what I am doing.

Thank you all very much for your help!!

[dsze]

Johnny,

First, I have to disagree with you on the speaker wire/cable issue...:) Home Depot speaker wire simply cannot compare to high-end cable on a high-end audio system. With low to even high-mid range speakers/systems you may very well not tell the difference....but go to your nearest high-end audio dealer and listen to a pair of B&W speakers powered by a couple of bi-amped B&K's and a Rotel Disc Spinner, and compare the sound of your home depot wire with that of some $25/ft. high end cable. The difference will be obvious. Actually, I doubt they'd even let you get near that equipment with home depot wire :) Seriously though, there is a difference in stereo cables.


However, I'm with you on the filter issue. I've had very cheap UV lenses on my cameras and done limited test shots with the filter & without the filter and can tell no noticable difference. Thus, I leave the cheap UV filters on simply to protect my 'real' glass from dust, scratches, finger pritns, etc. I too, am curious as to what the $150 version of my $15 UV lens will actually do differently. Anyone?

-daniel

[Belmondo]

I too, am curious as to what the $150 version of my $15 UV lens will actually do differently. Anyone?

-daniel


Stimulate the economy. Not much else.

[dsze]

belmondo, seriously? There are no real differences to justify a price diff. like that? Crazy.


-daniel

[Belmondo]

I'm sure there are differences, but seriously doubt that they are significant.

It's one of those things----
If you have to ask, you probably don't need it or can't afford it.

I suspect that for the vast majority of us, spending that kind of money for filters is going to accomplish nothing other than to relieve us of more money than would otherwise be necessary.

[CoolToolGuy]

This has been discussed several times on this forum, and the shortest way I can state it is that cheap filters are made from cheap glass, and anything that sits in front of your lens has the ability to affect your image. Hoya, Tiffen, and others of that level seem to be the best combination of price/performance, and those that are higher priced have some luxury features or exotic glass.

It certainly is individual choice, but if you choose high quality lenses (with high prices to match), why would you potentially alter the image with a cheap filter? :?

Have Fun,

[Belmondo]

CoolToolGuy:

Philosophically I agree with you, however unless and untill someone can give me a tangible demonstration of a cheap filter affecting image quality, I'm going to be a bit of a skeptic.

[CoolToolGuy]

CoolToolGuy:

Philosophically I agree with you, however unless and untill someone can give me a tangible demonstration of a cheap filter affecting image quality, I'm going to be a bit of a skeptic.

Tom,

I certainly can't provide facts to eliminate your skepticism, but I gotta believe that filter glass quality somewhat follows lens glass quality. Is B&W excessive? Probably. But most of the folks that frequent this forum picked Canon because they want the best. I can't believe that the cheapest available filter will give the same result on the front of an 'L' lens as the premium version will. I guess the question is, where is the crossover point? :?

Okay, we've had duck tests, and ruler tests, and I thought for a short while we were going to have light bulb tests (for the FPS on the MKII), so is there any way to do the greatest and most definitive filter test? Perhaps there is already one documented somewhere on this thing we call the Internet. Hmmm... :idea:

Have Fun,

[Belmondo]

Rick:
I think an important clue here is the fact that there is no existing definitive study on the subject that we’re aware of. Hopefully someone is aware of something we can look upon as authoritative. I agree with your logic, but must confess to having suspicions that the differences are so subtle as to not be quantifiable.

[robertwgross]

I would suggest that the higher priced filter has a tiny bit more factory testing placed on it so that you will get a bad one only once out of 10,000 instead of one out of 500, as might be the case with the cheaper brands.

Somebody had a terrible autofocus problem and they couldn't figure it out. Then they were told to remove the cheap UV filter from the lens, which they did, and the problem went away. That may have been the one out of 500.

We have no proof, but the theory was that the cheap filter might have been stuck slightly off-axis in its ring.

---Bob Gross---

[dsze]

That would make sense. However, I'd still be willing to buy several cheap UV filters until I got a good one rather than spend $150 or more on a 1/10,000 version!

[robertwgross]

That would make sense. However, I'd still be willing to buy several cheap UV filters until I got a good one rather than spend $150 or more on a 1/10,000 version!

To us ordinary mortals, that makes perfect sense. To a high-priced professional, it doesn't.

---Bob Gross---

[CoolToolGuy]

Rick:
I think an important clue here is the fact that there is no existing definitive study on the subject that we’re aware of. Hopefully someone is aware of something we can look upon as authoritative. I agree with your logic, but must confess to having suspicions that the differences are so subtle as to not be quantifiable.


Calling all Measurebators! What an opportunity! Resolve the filter quality issue once and for all!

So, let's see - we need several lenses of varying quality, 100 each of all the different brands and models of skylight, UV, polarizers, Kaesemann polarizers, etc, etc. Take thousands of shots from all angles and in all sorts of lighting as well as a series sans filters to satisfy the "you shouldn't even use a filter" crowd, then pore over every square millimeter of the results looking for anomalies. What fun! :roll:

I hope someone else has already done one of these, 'cause I don't think we'll get many takers... :shock:

This has always been a subject of discussion among photographers, and I don't see it changing any time soon. Just like black camera bodies and white lenses. 8)

Have Fun,

[CoolToolGuy]

That would make sense. However, I'd still be willing to buy several cheap UV filters until I got a good one rather than spend $150 or more on a 1/10,000 version!

To us ordinary mortals, that makes perfect sense. To a high-priced professional, it doesn't.

---Bob Gross---

Digital changes things somewhat, since problems can be fixed easier in post-processing than they could with film, but finding out I got a bad filter after I took that once-in-a-lifetime shot, or after I return from that special vacation is not where I want to go. Sort of like finding out you cheaped out on the wrong fire extinguisher while you're looking at the smoldering hulk that used to be your classic car. :shock:

Have Fun,

[dsze]

Yeah, good point. But, if I get a new filter, I'm going to take a few shots and then check them out BEFORE I go looking for those once-in-a-lifetime shots or go on vacation. I would do the same with a new lens, or even a new compact flash card. I think most of us would.

Someone has to come up with a study already done on this, surely.

:)

[PhotosGuy]

CoolToolGuy said:
I certainly can't provide facts to eliminate your skepticism, but I gotta believe that filter glass quality somewhat follows lens glass quality.

Some factors:
Optically flat glass.
Multicoating.
Quality mount.

I've seen a transmission curve comparison of UV filters somewhere, but can't find it again. There was a difference, sometimes large between some low end & high end ones. I'm not sure that it was big enough to matter to the average user but is probably valuable to scientific users.

I expect my filter to cut some haze & protect the multicoating on my lens when I only have the end of a t-shirt to wipe the dust, dog slobber, etc. off of it. That's all. I've used a few lenses for 40 years & the coatings look as good as new. :wink:

[CoolToolGuy]

The link below comes from Schneider Optik, the maker of B+W filters, so it may be somewhat tilted towards themselves. But having seen the difference between plain glass and optical glass (at the Corning museum as well as other demonstrations), I understand the difference cheap glass can make.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_still_photography/the_b%2Bw_difference/

Even Canon makes a big deal out of the type of glass they use. Fluorite and UD glass are two of the things that define an 'L' lens.

I just can't see spending all that cash for a lens and then cheaping out on something through which all the light that the lens collects passes. And the difference in cost is not that much. Let's take 58mm as an example - A Sunpak is $5, Hoyas are $10 ($15 for multi-coated) and B+W is $28 (all eBay Buy It Now prices). If I thought I could improve the technical quality of my images for $23 (or even for $10 for a Hoya) I would certainly jump at it. Filter tests? I don't have time for that. Post-processing? If you put any value on your time, that $23 will be burned up very quickly, perhaps on one image.

My 2 cents (or is it $23?). :roll:

Have Fun,

[Johnnynf]

I just can't see spending all that cash for a lens and then cheaping out on something through which all the light that the lens collects passes. And the difference in cost is not that much. Let's take 58mm as an example - A Sunpak is $5, Hoyas are $10 ($15 for multi-coated) and B+W is $28 (all eBay Buy It Now prices). If I thought I could improve the technical quality of my images for $23 (or even for $10 for a Hoya) I would certainly jump at it. Filter tests? I don't have time for that. Post-processing? If you put any value on your time, that $23 will be burned up very quickly, perhaps on one image.



I would agree with this statement. Those prices are not that different. However, I was also looking to buy a circular polarizer, and the price difference between the cheapest and most expensive is a little more pronounced. Like I said in an earlier post, the cheapest polarizer that B and H has is $54 while the most expensive is $377 (list price $698). That's a pretty big difference. That is almost more than I paid for the lens. I can't believe that this is necessary.

I guess this is just one of those topics where there is no clear answer...kind of like the whole RAW vs. JPEG thing. I will probably just end up buying the Promaster filters from my local camera shop and be done with it. I know they aren't the best, but they probably aren't the worst either.

Thanks for the great discussion!!

[Belmondo]

I guess this is just one of those topics where there is no clear answer...kind of like the whole RAW vs. JPEG thing. I will probably just end up buying the Promaster filters from my local camera shop and be done with it. I know they aren't the best, but they probably aren't the worst either.

I agree there's no clear answer, although I'm not sure about your RAW vs. JPEG analogy. There are clear differences between the two file formats that might be important to a user. If those differences are not important, at least they are understood.

The differences between expensive filters and the less costly versions are not nearly as well defined. Until the differences are understood, the benefits can only be based on speculation that expensive means better.

[Johnnynf]

I guess this is just one of those topics where there is no clear answer...kind of like the whole RAW vs. JPEG thing. I will probably just end up buying the Promaster filters from my local camera shop and be done with it. I know they aren't the best, but they probably aren't the worst either.

I agree there's no clear answer, although I'm not sure about your RAW vs. JPEG analogy. There are clear differences between the two file formats that might be important to a user. If those differences are not important, at least they are understood.

The differences between expensive filters and the less costly versions are not nearly as well defined. Until the differences are understood, the benefits can only be based on speculation that expensive means better.

Ok, I guess my analogy was not the best...but I knew what I was trying to say. :D I know that there are very clear differences between RAW and JPEG. But do these differences always equate to a difference in picture quality? Obviously not. My point was that no matter how much it is debated (like this whole filter thing), no one will ever be able to say that without a doubt, one is better than the other. Same thing with filters I guess...maybe for some there are some tangible differences, but for others, a cheap filter (or using JPEG) is perfectly fine. As with RAW vs. JPEG, will I ever see a difference in picture quality between a cheap filter and an expensive one. In 90% of the situations...probably not.

I will agree wholeheartedly that at least the differences between RAW and JPEG are clearly understood. With filters, as you say, we are largely speculating.

[Belmondo]

Well then, that makes at least two of us who think pretty much alike on this subject.

[hopeless amateur]

I'm perhaps naive here (as my member name may suggest) but I think we are forgetting another function of filters-namely to protect an EXPENSIVE lens. If you use a ridiculously expensive filter that you damage and then have to throw away, what are we saving here? I understand the clarity issue around a "cheap filter" degrading image quality of an expensive lens. This argument is well taken (assuming someone can come up with appropriate photos to back up this claim) but the function of "cheap filter PROTECTING expensive lens goes out the window with a $350 filter. I have devised my own test. Take picture with cheap filter. Take filter off. Take picture again without cheap filter. Do I see a difference? If yes-use better filter. No difference? Save money and leave it on.