are multi-coated filters worth double the price of non MC filters?

[johnathanesper]

are the double prices for Hoya's HMC (multi-coated) filters worth the extra money?
Thanks!
Johnathan Esper
www.wildernessphotographs.com (http://www.wildernessphotographs.com)

[Tom W]

Yes. Here's a post I made in a previous thread. I purposely set up an extreme situation to show the effects of a cheap filter on flare.

The context of this thread, and another thread on another web site (I'm cheating on y'all) provoked me to take this series of images. All were shot with a very bright flashlight shining into the camera lens, just off to the left. Granted, its a worst-case situation, but I think it demonstrates the effects of filters on flare.

first, the lens without filter:
http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521573.jpg


Now, the inexpensive Canon UV/Haze filter (note the drastic increase in flare):
http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521574.jpg


And finally, with a Hoya Super HMC multicoated UV filter (note that it is very close to the unfiltered image):
http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521575.jpg

[johnathanesper]

thanks! that was very helpful!

[tim]

From that, if you bother to get a filter, get a good one. I recently took the expensive hoya filter off my Tamron, I figured it wasn't doing any good, but I might put it back on now... or at least do a few tests myself.

[Huckaback Photo]

Yes is the correct answer. best Hoya HMC or B & W quallity filters are great.

[pcasciola]

I recently bought a Hoya Super Multicoated UV filter from Adorama for my 85mm, like the one Tom W showed above. The salesman called me and said he could sell me a Tiffen 3 filter kit for $10 more than just the UV I had just ordered. When I said I'd rather have one good filter than three cheap-o ones, he said, "Ok, that's your business. I was just trying to be helpful".

[ijohnson]

I have never paid to much attention to the difference. I always buy the most expensive one because I can't bring myself to put $30 glass in front of my $1000 lens. It just doesn't make sense. I don't like using them at all but I do because I couldn't bear to see the Canon glass scratched.

[12345Michael54321]

Multi-coating is better in a fair percentage of situations. It's very rarely worse.

If you're willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for your camera, and hundreds or thousands of dollars more for your lenses, does it really make sense to run a non-trivial risk of compromising image quality in order to save $20-60 (that being the typical price difference between multi-coated and non-multi-coated filters)?

I mean, final image quality is the result of a "chain" of factors (proper focus, proper exposure, steadiness of camera support, lens quality, etc.), where a single weak "link" can significantly impair the ultimate outcome. Spending a few extra bucks on a top qualilty filter can turn a potentially weak link into a strong one. Seems like a no brainer kind of decision to me.