Does filter quality matter?

[runswithsizzers]

I want to get a few colored filters for black and white film photography - yellow, orange, and red. These will be used with Konica Hexanon AR lenses on a Konica Autoreflex T4, and possibly also with my Pentax MX gear, using step up rings.

There are tons of used filters available on eBay at reasonable prices. Can I consider any filter which was "made in Japan" in the analog heydays to be of reasonable quality? Or would it be worth the extra time and cost to seek out a more modern filter from Hoya or B+W with multicoating? By "reasonable quality" I mean, am I going to see any difference in image quality between a moderate quality filter compared to the top shelf ones?

Right now I have my eye on a set of Toshiba brand filters, made in Japan, but I can't find any specific info to tell me if the Toshiba filters were "cheap" filters - or comparable to the ones Canon, Minolta, and Nikon were putting their names on back in the 1970s.

And how would the 1970s Canon, Minolta, and Nikon filters compare to modern filters by Hoya, Marumi, or B+W?

 

[Paul Howell]

There is much debate about filter quality, some argue that new multicoated filters are the best, while others argue that if your lens is multicoated then a a multicoated filter is overkill. I guess I fall in-between, I use older Konica, Minolta non MC Pentax among others and I do have a few multicoated filters, then I have large bin of older filters, most Tiffin, some Hoya, and a set of 52mm Minolta filters. I have not added many multicoated filters as the filter sizes I use range from 46mm to 72mm, the cost is really high. I also use resin Cokin filters, I have adaptors from 49mm to 72mm, I recall an article in Shutterbug in the early 90s in which the author tested glass and resin filters and found the resin filters worked as well as glass. That has been my experaince as well, I prefer glass just because of connivance.

 

[Nitroplait]

I think most people have better things to do than to compare filters of different price categories from different decades. I would just get something that fits my budget and was recognised in its time as quality. If buying new I would look at B+W, Heliopan, Nikon or Hoya/Kenko.

 

[mshchem]

I use older Nikon 37c and new BW MRC filters. The BW MRC filters are a thing of beauty,

 

[Jim Jones]

To get the best performance from multicoated lenses, one should also use multicoated filters. Older single coated or, much worse, uncoated filters even if top quality otherwise, are the weak link in the optical system in some photography.

 

[BMbikerider]

A while back I would have said yes. However I have recently been using plastic acrylic ones sold under the Cokin brand name and to be honest I could not see the difference between those and glass ones. Perhaps under optical test bench conditions, that may be possible, but so long as I don't make a habit of taking shots with the sun in view I have no problem (or difficulty.)

 

[Nitroplait]

It is more important to have high optical quality glass (or resin) than coating on an effect or color filter. For a permanently mounted filter I would not do without multi coating.

 

[AgX]

To get the best performance from multicoated lenses, one should also use multicoated filters. Older single coated or, much worse, uncoated filters even if top quality otherwise, are the weak link in the optical system in some photography.

Not quite.
The optical chain is not as simple as a mechanical chain, where the weakest link is the one that determines the breaking force. Instead rather think in the directiojn how elements' resolution affects the system resolution in an imaging chain.

The surface reflectivity of a filter is due to 2 surfaces, against up to two-dozen surfaces in a lens.

Concerning the role these two surfaces have campared to that of those two-dozen others, there has been discussion, and I was told to underestimate the role of filter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is much debate about filter quality, some argue that new multicoated filters are the best, while others argue that if your lens is multicoated then a a multicoated filter is overkill. I guess I fall in-between, I use older Konica, Minolta non MC Pentax among others and I do have a few multicoated filters, then I have large bin of older filters, most Tiffin, some Hoya, and a set of 52mm Minolta filters. I have not added many multicoated filters as the filter sizes I use range from 46mm to 72mm, the cost is really high. I also use resin Cokin filters, I have adaptors from 49mm to 72mm, I recall an article in Shutterbug in the early 90s in which the author tested glass and resin filters and found the resin filters worked as well as glass. That has been my experaince as well, I prefer glass just because of connivance.

Every link in the optical path is important. The image quality is only as strong as the weakest leak. If possible both the lens and the filter should be multicoated.

To get the best performance from multicoated lenses, one should also use multicoated filters. Older single coated or, much worse, uncoated filters even if top quality otherwise, are the weak link in the optical system in some photography.[Empahsis added]

This is what I was taught at Kodak.
I recommend glass multicoated filters. The quality matters. I use Hasselblad, Heliopan, B+W, then Tiffin, Hoya, ... never gels since they are somewhat fragile and the can be problems from handling, storage and mounting.

 

[AgX]

Every link in the optical path is important. The image quality is only as strong as the weakest leak.

Not true, just look at what I wrote about resolutions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not true, just look at what I wrote about resolutions.

It is true. The resolution is also as strong as the weakest link.

 

[mshchem]

It is true. The resolution is also as strong as the weakest link.

Light transmission is and contrast are the big things for me. That and the filter needs to be parallel.
I bought BW 67mm mrc filters and Heliopan Bay 60 adapters for my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Costs real money. I don't need to be sold on mrc filters. Brass and amazing glass.
It's a strong personal preference.

 

[George Mann]

Toshiba made hi-end filters. I use them. Their color correcting filters produce good images.

 

[MattKing]

To my mind, the mechanical quality of the better filters is at least as important as the optical quality.
And multi-coating on the curved surface of a glass lens element used to refract and transmit light will no doubt have a different effect than multi-coating on the flat surface of a glass filter used to transmit light.
The comparative magnitude of the two effects is always an interesting point of discusion.

 

[Nokinnikon]

I always used wratten, cut to size 100mm, 27 mm (14 mm Nikon WA with rear fitting) it was the standard.
wratten green filter in woodland scene below.

https://www.blipfoto.com/entry/2871002079684462388

 

[snusmumriken]

Assuming the purpose of optical coatings is to minimise flare, you're not going to see a difference in image quality in every shot, not even if every shot is taken against the light. I suspect you would notice no difference in the vast majority of shots. But when it matters you might wish you had a coated filter (or you might just think 'That shot wasn't meant to happen with this equipment', depending on your philosophy).

The 'weakest link' metaphor isn't really appropriate because obviously you'll still get some sort of image with completely uncoated optics, and that may be completely satisfactory. But as I understand it, flare is additive through the whole image path, so to cover all situations it makes sense (to me) to use a quality filter on quality lenses to limit degradation of the image in testing conditions.

I hope I'm not perpetuating a myth, but I believe I read somewhere that at least some Leica-branded filters were out-sourced to B+W. That sort of thing may be more common than we imagine.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For glass, I've only ever used Kenko. For gel I've only ever used Wratten filters... I do have some cheap IR filters from China, and they are excellent. Back in the day, I used to go out with loads of Wratten filters, but only ever really used light yellow, dark yellow, red, or 87C for IR. Now I only have yellow, red, and 720 IR glass filters...77mm because I can use them on my LF lenses (some need step up rings), and my RB67. Next time I'm in Japan I'll pick up a Kenko light green, as I seemed to have misplaced mine...

 

[Arthurwg]

I have wondered if using a gel filter in an unprotected holder, eg, without a hood or at the front of a bellows lens shade, would attract reflections or flare. Apparently not.

 

[George Mann]

A hood is an important accessory that every lens should have.

 

[jeffreyg]

I go along with the best glass mentions. There was only one mention of brass mounts which I strongly agree with. Many filters are mounted in aluminum mounts. Brass is more durable and is worth the extra upfront cost. I have used Hasselblad filters as well as adapters with Heliopan and B-W filters along with other brands and can say that there may not be very noticeable differences in image quality but the difference in serviceability is worth the difference in cost in the long run.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[__Brian]

Quality does matter, but in the case of yellow, orange, and red filters that cut out 1 stop, 2 stops, and 3 stops respectively- I would not worry about using the latest multicoated filters. Use a hood. Coatings increase transmission and decrease reflections. Increase transmisison of 4% compared with uncoated filters when you are cutting out at least 50%- no big deal. Compare with 1% Difference from single-coated filters, even less. Reflections- Hood is more effective.

With a vintage filter: condition is important, haze, discoloring, fungus- more of an impact than uncoated vs coated. Find a good, clean vintage filter- usually a lot cheaper than a B&W yellow, orange, or red.

Most Konica lenses use 55mm filters- easy to find good, clean vintage ones. New B&W filters, likely to cost as much as the lens. For 55mm- Vivitar filters can be found, new-old-stock. I use them, they work well. For 52mm- I have a full set of Nikkor single-coated filters, chrome finish meaning they are from the 1950s, maybe early 1960s. Work great. 49mm- picked up a set of B&W, work great too. Can I tell a difference with my M Monochrom? No.

Side-Note: shooting Konica, be sure to add a 50mm F1.7 Hexanon. It is their best 50, I made an RF cam for mine and use it on my Leica.

 

[logan2z]

Not to sound flippant, but buy quality, you'll never regret it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not to sound flippant, but buy quality, you'll never regret it.

I have bought quality filters used. Check for scratches or damage as well as return policy.

 

[randyB]

I've used all kinds of filter brands, the big name brands and some with questionable build quality. Most have been acceptable for general photos. Only once did I come across a filter that was obviously defective, it was a new Sky 1A by an off-brand company, it had clearly visible waves in the glass. These were in the clearance box at the closeout of the photo dept at Montgomery Ward back in the late 70's. I checked several other filters of the same brand and they all had waves. I chuckled and walked away.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Toshiba made hi-end filters. I use them. Their color correcting filters produce good images.

Thank you! I was having trouble finding info about their photo filters. I will do a quick check with and without to verify they are OK. I like the idea of using classic gear, but of course, not all of the film-era gear was great.