A good quality filter for my 50L

Greetings,

I have posted specific questions before and gotten many great responses.
I am not a newbie to the filter names, qualities and differences.
I am just looking to hear from active shooters.

Most of my photography is 'outdoor journalist' editorial, and mainly environmental portraits.
Minimal indoors aside from museums and friends homes. Nothing studio or formal portraits.

Currently I have a 24L and got a used Kenko 77mm UV SL-39 filter that I have been very happy with.
I also bought a Kenko Pro1D ND4 filter and don't notice a lack in quality even when shooting comparison shots.

With that said I have had a Pro1D ND8 filter on my 50L and I am happy with the quality.
This ND8 is not used in low light and I have been using it without a filter more and more.
I would rather keep a filter and I want to buy a clear filter for low-low light shooting.

I am not a filter snob, but want my money to be effective. I do not desire the most expensive filter.
I will be buying a multi coated filter. I like the Kenko quality for their price. I find no complaints.
For example their multicoated MC UV line seems exactly like their Pro1D line, yet the price is more than double.
The only substantial difference in material and coating is on their Zeta line of filter that others have compared to the discontinued HOYO Pro line on other threads.
If they are all multicoated, its there a noticable real world difference for their own x3 the price differences?

From other users, what is the most popular filter for general use? I don't want flair or reflection.
I almost alway use a hood, but not when I want the maximum available light.

Thank you in advance for your experiences.

I'm pretty sure that the really expensive filters *are* a complete rip-off. Some cost more than lenses! It's not THAT hard to make a flat piece of glass.

From a practical point of view, I'd advise against super-slim filters, because they don't have enough filter thread on them and make fitting the lens-cap more of a fiddle.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #17429568
This ND8 is not used in low light and I have been using it without a filter more and more. I would rather keep a filter and I want to buy a clear filter for low-low light shooting.

It is true that the 50L requires a filter to be weather sealed but I think you're being a bit paranoid by normally keeping an ND on there just because you don't have a UV filter. My 50L is several years old, and although I don't usually fit the high-end clear filter I own I don't see any dust in there yet.

A properly fitting hood like the one supplied with this lens will not affect exposure. It will only cut out light that should not have been part of the image.

I have only used my 50L without its hood once and that was the last time. Every single frame from that session was binned due to flare. IMO this lens absolutely requires the hood to be used all the time.

aldownie wrote in post #17429979
I'm pretty sure that the really expensive filters *are* a complete rip-off. Some cost more than lenses! It's not THAT hard to make a flat piece of glass.

From a practical point of view, I'd advise against super-slim filters, because they don't have enough filter thread on them and make fitting the lens-cap more of a fiddle.

In both regards I totally disagree.
When's the last time you made a piece of glass, let alone on that requires good optics?
As to the super-slim filters, well, if you shoot wide angle on a FF body, you may not have a choice. The lens covers that come with the slim filters I shoot with are no problem to deal with.

windpig wrote in post #17430008
As to the super-slim filters, well, if you shoot wide angle on a FF body, you may not have a choice. The lens covers that come with the slim filters I shoot with are no problem to deal with.

The slip-on cap that came with my slim B+W filter is indeed no trouble to deal with because it fell off somewhere and I no longer have it. Actually, they are notorious for that.

The 50L does not require a slim filter.

Indeed the 50mm doesn't need a slim filter, but the blanket statement was slims were over priced.
As far as the cap falling off, well things happen, but on a slim filter you're not going to put a regular cap on.
My comment was to the blanket statements of the person I quoted.

I always use B+W filters. They are a little more expensive. My thinking is that, either not to use filters, or use filters of high quality so that they won't interfere with the IQ.

Granted, some less expensive ones may function equally well. Just don't feel peace of mind ...

windpig wrote in post #17430008
When's the last time you made a piece of glass, let alone on that requires good optics?

I don't make a living out of making glass, that's true. But I have in the past made a living out of using good quality optics, some with filters fitted; some without, and I know that there's zero difference in the quality of image that's projected through a filter that costs £20 and a filter that costs £200. I've also been around the block enough times to know that there are people who will gladly pay £200 for a filter, if the company says it's better than a £20 filter (e.g. 'optimised for digital' etc). Then those same people will opine all over the internet about how much better those filters are, and that's why companies make £200 filters.

Have you ever seen a side-by-side test of a £20 filter and a £200 filter, and been able to tell the difference in image quality? Please share!

As to your comment about my 'blanket statements', this is a thread about filters for the 50L. The 50L which comes with a Canon pinch cap. The pinch cap whose teeth are a bit too deep to fit well on the thread of very slim filters. In what way is my comment a 'blanket statement'? I thought it was specific and relevant. Like yours would have been, if this was a thread about wide angle lenses.

I don't have the direct links but I have read 2 different indepth tests/reviews of UV and polarizer filters. There were some truly horrible filters and a few real standouts in the mid to low priced ones. If I find the link I will post it. Issues were with flare, coloring, light passing primarily.

aldownie wrote in post #17430194
I
Have you ever seen a side-by-side test of a £20 filter and a £200 filter, and been able to tell the difference in image quality? Please share!

There certainly are images that would work with a cheap filter, but then there are also lighting scenarios where indeed you'll see a difference. One doesn't need to spend $200 on a 72mm filter to get quality optics that are certainly better than a $20 knock off, there are good filters in the $80 to $120 range for sure. The more expensive filters will have better built quality for use in less than ideal environments.

An expensive filter does not make a good filter.

This article should be stickied for everyone to reference:
http://www.lenstip.com …icle-uv_filters_test.html

Some of the results are shocking!

I use B+W 010M myself.

Most of mine are B+W 010M. For my new 24-70 II, I put a B+W 007M, which is clear, no UV haze filtering.

They are all less than $91.

jmai86 wrote in post #17430455
An expensive filter does not make a good filter.

I agree, like a lot of other things.

jmai86 wrote in post #17430455
I use B+W 010M myself.

B&W for me also

I bought the highest quality clear B+W (not UV, clear) for my 50L when I got it. It sits permanently on my lens and never had any IQ loss. I buy the top end B+W always for my needs. Investing in proper glass is the way to go for both lenses and filters.

Heya,

A good multi-coated Marumi UV would make a good piece of glass that doesn't cost a mint and provides the same quality as B+W.

Frankly though, you don't need a clear filter. But that's another thread...

Very best,