Circular Polarizing Filters - Uncoated and Coated Images

There is much talk about the image quality of uncoated and multicoated circular-polarizing filters. High-end multi-coated CP filters are commonly recommended, but are relatively expensive.

I am unable to find any resources comparing images between low-end and high end filters.

Can anyone show me the image differences between low-end and high-end filters from the same company?

Someone (not working for the manufacturers) needs to prove to me that there is really a difference.

agatep wrote in post #2164957
There is much talk about the image quality of uncoated and multicoated circular-polarizing filters. High-end multi-coated CP filters are commonly recommended, but are relatively expensive.

I am unable to find any resources comparing images between low-end and high end filters.

Can anyone show me the image differences between low-end and high-end filters from the same company?

Someone (not working for the manufacturers) needs to prove to me that there is really a difference.

Buy some of the cheap ones and post the images. I am sure that we would all be interested. Not sure why we would need to prove to you the difference. It is really a personal thing.

I would be interested to know also if its worth paying the extra.. which i think is OPs question.

Quality glass used in filters will prevent distortion of an image that is possible with cheap filters that are not optically flat. Multicoating of a filter's surfaces helps to reduce (but will not necessarily eliminate) flare from high-intensity light sources that impinge on the filter.

The above is true for ALL filters, not just polarizing types.

what is considered cheap and what is expensive?

Skrim17 wrote in post #2165179
what is considered cheap and what is expensive?

My use of the word "cheap" does not necessarily relate to price. It's lousy quality of construction that I call "cheap". Usually junk filters will also have a low price, but that is not always true. Often, it's "buyer beware".

Sticking with the better name brands (such as Hoya, B&W, and Heliopan) - and making sure the characteristics of the filter (such as multicoating, the material that you want for the threaded ring, etc.) are what you are looking for is the best way to be assured that you are buying a quality filter.

thanks for the informative post.

agatep wrote in post #2164957
Someone (not working for the manufacturers) needs to prove to me that there is really a difference.

This is why you don't want to buy El' Cheapo quality filters. I learned my lesson after this outing last summer in New Orleans. 75% of my photos looked like this from that afternoon. Since then in all types of conditions I haven't had an issue with my Hoya Pro1 Digital Circular Polarizers.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

You won't see many cheap samples because the images produced aren't keepers.

Seriously though. It pays to get a GOOD filter. Heliopan and B+W make the best available. Hoya Pro1 are also good. The more coatings, the better.

At the bottom of the heap are Canon (a.k.a. Tiffen), Quantaray (Ritz Camera), etc.

Double Negative wrote in post #2167989
You won't see many cheap samples because the images produced aren't keepers.

Seriously though. It pays to get a GOOD filter. Heliopan and B+W make the best available. Hoya Pro1 are also good. The more coatings, the better.

At the bottom of the heap are Canon (a.k.a. Tiffen), Quantaray (Ritz Camera), etc.

Can you name or link to some of these C-PL? i had 2, Cokin (77mm) and Marumi (58mm) both working good but i am not sure if they are enough good in many situations, in addition i got many lenses now and i need one more C-PL 77mm for most of my lenses (10-22, L:16-36, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400)

Cheap filters are fine if you understand their limits, I use a real cheap polariser & may get a better one when I can get enough cash together, 72mm on my sigma lens are not cheap, I dont get any problems though.

So long as you dont go pointing the lens where sun can cause glare its fine, ive had a few situations where im pointing with the sun almost in the corner of the image, but my lens hood takes care of most flare problems.

The best would be expensive filter + hood, then you wouldnt get any problems, if you still get some lens flare, then even without the better filter it would have been a problem, after lots of tests I found under the worst flare conditions filter or no filter, it wasnt any good, a coating on the lens can only do so much, the Hoya Pro1 filters £ for £ are more expensive than any L lens, imagine having 12 elements made up of hoya Pro1 priced glass, it would be a damn expensive lens!! lol..

At the end of the day, you get what you pay for, try a cheapy, but if your doing shots that are critical then dont risk it, get a decent one, at least you would have done all you can then to get the best out of your kit.

Nick

Tareq wrote in post #2168053
Can you name or link to some of these C-PL? i had 2, Cokin (77mm) and Marumi (58mm) both working good but i am not sure if they are enough good in many situations, in addition i got many lenses now and i need one more C-PL 77mm for most of my lenses (10-22, L:16-36, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400)

You can find these filters at any reputable distributor...

Cheap filters work - assuming you know their limits as Nick says. Hey, I've got a Marumi or two myself floating around.

Stick with the better Hoya filters and make sure it's multicoated - or better.

One thing you can do to reduce cost is buy the largest CPL you'll forsee needing (e.g. 77mm) and just get step-down rings for other lenses. One word of caution though; you can't step down too much (meaning the CPL would be too big) because of interference with the lens hood - and one wide angles such as that 10-22mm, you'll vignette if you try this. Best to get a properly sized and "slim" version for use on that lens.

Hoya markets multiple lines of filters...about 5 of them, I think! At the bottom are the Single Coated, next up is Hoya Multicoated, next up is the Super Multicoated, higher up are the Digital Pro. Per claims, each is more efficient in light transmission (passing more of the light thru) and preventing reflections (letting less of it bounce off the filter surfaces). If I recall, the single coat passes 93%, HMC passes 97%, SHMC passes 99.7%, and the digital have coatings on the filter edge for further reduction of light bouncing off surfaces 'because digital is more vulnerable' (my words).

Under the right conditions you CAN see the difference in filter quality. Lowered contrast, more reflections, in side by side test photos.

I was worry if i travel if i need better C-PL filter but i think the sun there is not strong enough or say disappeared most of the time behind clouds so then i don't need that expensive filter, but in my area, even you are at home you feel the heat and strong light of the sun, so means you need something to prevent most of the sun x-ray or flares or even reflections.
Anyway, i used cheap C-PL on my shots of Ajman beach in Landscape section and i don't know if they are good enough.

agatep - if you don't beleive the hype - get the cheap one. You'll find out for yourself if you like it or not.