Does filter quality matter?

[Huss]

Why would anybody spend many hundreds of dollars on camera and lens only to be chintzy about filters?

It still pays to research. Hoya filters in tests have shown to be much better than the much more expensive Heliopan filters.

And actually Leica filters rule them all. lensrentals.com had a test that showed those results.

 

[jnamia]

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?

get some inexpensive filters and use them. look at your prints or however you look at your photographs
and you decide if they are good enough. .. or not, then replace them. You might realize it's not the filters that need replacing
but all your vintage gear well, it's not good enough, and your film isn't good enough and your darkroom needs replacing too...
it's a never ending avalanche of GAS.
good luck!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep! I use older original Zeiss and Leitz filters on some of my older lenses, but limit my filter purchases to high quality products by B+W, etc. Tiffen filters are more reasonably priced, and are widely used by cinematographers.
Why would anybody spend many hundreds of dollars on camera and lens only to be chintzy about filters?

Bingo! Nailed it! I buy the Hasselblad, Heliopan and B+W filters as the first choice for those reasons and because those companies sell bayonet filters. And if possible I will buy them used in good condition. If I cannot get the desired filters from those companies I will buy Hoya and Tiffen filters, but avoid the low cost low quality filters.

 

[wiltw]

If I cannot get the desired filters from those companies I will buy Hoya and Tiffen filters, but avoid the low cost low quality filters.

My post 41 linked test which included Tiffen, which was the worst result of that test series.
I once destroyed a Tiffen that acted like a prism when it was rotated around, rather than foist it upon an innocent buyer. BTW, while I like Hoya SHMC line, I also know that Hoya offers a line of double-coated filters (Hoya's blue box series) which are in the same class as Tiffen, and they are avoided as well.

Too bad that Hoya totally revamped its lineup and no longer distinguish SHMC, HMC, blue box. Their 'digital' filters were no better than HMC coatings, and now they provide a chart which shows 4 lines of filter coatings, 32, 18, 10 or 6 coating for UV filters, but 16, 18, 10 or zero coatings for CPL, so it is impossible to know coatings simply from the name of the line of filters...HD3 line UV has 32, while HD3 line CPL has only 16 coatings.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.



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.

What about graduated ND filters?

 

[Sirius Glass]

What about graduated ND filters?

I never had one and I will probably never want one. I am happy with the real world and do not need an artificial horizon.

 

[Huss]

I never had one and I will probably never want one. I am happy with the real world and do not need an artificial horizon.

What film do you suggest to use for the real world? Or is digital more real? How about lenses? Which one is the most real?

 

[BrianShaw]

My post 41 linked test which included Tiffen, which was the worst result of that test series.

Thirty-one

 

[Sirius Glass]

What film do you suggest to use for the real world? Or is digital more real? How about lenses? Which one is the most real?

Kodak Portra 400
Kodak UlraColor 400
Kodak Vivid Color 160 and 400
Several FujiColor films
Kodak Tri-X 400
Kodak Plus X
Kodak HIE
Ilford HP5+
Ilford FP4+
Rollei IR 400

Just about anything made by Hasselblad, Nikon, Graphic and Graflex.

Digital is for people who can only deal with two states: 0 or 1, True or False, On or Off, Right or Wrong, Right or Left

Are you still walking around with one leg longer than the other, because someone must be pulling your leg?

 

[wiltw]

Digital is for people who can only deal with two states: 0 or 1, True or False, On or Off, Right or Wrong, Right or Left

Would you rather lose a leg, or an arm? All that only applies to 1-bit
...5-bit digital lets you chose which finger/toe gets taken v which ear, and a few other options.
...With 8-bit digital you have 256 variants in between True v False, Far right v Far left (moderation in between), Black v White.
Photrio is no longer analog v digital, it has hybrid too, but some traditionalists have a hard time adjusting. Oil or acrylic? what about watercolor?!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Would you rather lose a leg, or an arm? All that only applies to 1-bit
...5-bit digital lets you chose which finger/toe gets taken v which ear, and a few other options.
...With 8-bit digital you have 256 variants in between True v False, Far right v Far left (moderation in between), Black v White.
Photrio is no longer analog v digital, it has hybrid too, but some traditionalists have a hard time adjusting. Oil or acrylic? what about watercolor?!

Paper or Plastic. I was answering the question asked, not addressing your agenda.

 

[wiltw]

My prior comment was made in jest, about the analog vs. digital very polar sentiments that can be found on this forum. Besides, most 'digital' in cameras is 14-bit. I have no agenda it this regard. I shot film for 50 years, I shot digital for about 18 years, I still own both.

Now we're discussing the backing of enlargement paper?!

 

[Sirius Glass]

My prior comment was made in jest, about the analog vs. digital very polar sentiments that can be found on this forum. Besides, most 'digital' in cameras is 14-bit. I have no agenda it this regard. I shot film for 50 years, I shot digital for about 18 years, I still own both.

Now we're discussing the backing of enlargement paper?!

I still do not have a need for the graduated filter.

 

[wiltw]

I choose between high-end brands based on their specific selection. MC Hoya are every bit as good optically as B&W or Heliopan, maybe better in certain cases, and easier to clean in my opinion. But one point not even mentioned yet is how different kinds of microfiber lens cloths or solutions might work slightly differently in that respect. Brass versus anodized aluminum rings? - not that big a deal. Brass is nominally superior, but also quite a big heavier if you need to carry a quantity of them of larger diameter backpacking, for example. There's also quite a cost differential independent of actual optical performance.

I have found that modern lenses do not appear to have issues of binding aluminum ring filters as great of a problem as one my film camera systems from 60 years ago! When I put away my film systems I made sure that any filters were NOT screwed in snugly, just lightly. Nevertheless, when pulling out my Oly system lenses a few months ago, the filters were very snugly embedded to the lens barrels. I do appreciate the reduced inherent tendency to bind using brass filter rings,

 

[wiltw]

I still do not have a need for the graduated filter.

My issue is the need to finely adjust the position of the graduated filter vertically to suit the location of the horizon as framed, yet the systems which I am familar with are not necessarily well designed to hold that position.
Having camera on tripod helps, but one hand for holding the filter and the other hand for the shutter does not alleviate enough any inadvertant change in the vertical placement of the filter while also peering into the eyepiece.
and using a filter needing vertical fine positioning, while sticking one's head under a Large Format camera dark cloth, and then also needing to insert a sheet film holder and withdraw the dark slide...one needs to be an octopus!

 

[Sirius Glass]

My issue is the need to finely adjust the position of the graduated filter vertically to suit the location of the horizon as framed, yet the systems which I am familar with are not necessarily well designed to hold that position.
Having camera on tripod helps, but one hand for holding the filter and the other hand for the shutter does not alleviate enough any inadvertant change in the vertical placement of the filter while also peering into the eyepiece.
and using a filter needing vertical fine positioning, while sticking one's head under a Large Format camera dark cloth, and then also needing to insert a sheet film holder and withdraw the dark slide...one needs to be an octopus!

That is primary among my objections. Next is the artificial demarcation of the horizon that may appear.

 

[wiltw]

That is primary among my objections. Next is the artificial demarcation of the horizon that may appear.

Indeed. Horizons are not always nice straight lines...sometimes land masses break the horizon, sometimes the horizon is a jagged city skyline, and sometimes the horizon is a curve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Indeed. Horizons are not always nice straight lines...sometimes land masses break the horizon, sometimes the horizon is a jagged city skyline, and sometimes the horizon is a curve.

Besides one could use a piece of cardboard in the darkroom to darken the sky with out the super useless graduated filters. The card board can be used to make a graduated sky.

 

[MattKing]

Besides one could use a piece of cardboard in the darkroom to darken the sky with out the super useless graduated filters. The card board can be used to make a graduated sky.

Tough to do with a slide projector.....

 

[Down Under]

Filters. Eh heh. I fell for this too, in the 1980s when I bought heavily into Nikons. Got them all. Nikkors. Top dollar ones.

Now and then I've used a yellow. Also an orange. Maybe once, a red. The rest lie at rest in their nice plastic cases, pristinely new, unused. A small fortune in glass.

In all my time in photography, every pro shooter I've ever met used (and still uses) clear UVs. So I bought Nikkor UVs. Every lens I own has one.

And that's all. Nowadays it can all be added in post processing.

Odd, this. They do what they do well, but we can get by just as well without.

So what I'm saying is, get UVs, but for the rest, save your money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Post-processing? What forum are you on anyway? If panchromatic black and white film is involved, versus color film, you HAVE to filter it at the time of the shot with black and white contrast filters if you want the effect. Filters are tools, and dollar and time wise, far more effective tools in black and white photography than all the endless "post" futzing around. It takes about 5 seconds to screw on a contrast filter. Fingers actually have more uses than just punching keyboard buttons. But if "all the pros" you know can't afford a basic filter set, maybe they should be looking for a different career. Pizza Hut has job listings.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Filters. Eh heh. I fell for this too, in the 1980s when I bought heavily into Nikons. Got them all. Nikkors. Top dollar ones.

Now and then I've used a yellow. Also an orange. Maybe once, a red. The rest lie at rest in their nice plastic cases, pristinely new, unused. A small fortune in glass.

In all my time in photography, every pro shooter I've ever met used (and still uses) clear UVs. So I bought Nikkor UVs. Every lens I own has one.

And that's all. Nowadays it can all be added in post processing.

Odd, this. They do what they do well, but we can get by just as well without.

So what I'm saying is, get UVs, but for the rest, save your money.

What are you trying to convey? Buy cheap filters? Buy no filters? Only buy expensive UV filters? Why use UV filters at all on lenses made after the mid-1950s? What can be done post-processing? With black and white film? How about polarizers? Buy cheap ones?

 

[AgX]

What about graduated ND filters?

All quality issues discussed so far apply on these too.

Added by possible lack in neutrality in this case.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Besides one could use a piece of cardboard in the darkroom to darken the sky with out the super useless graduated filters. The card board can be used to make a graduated sky.

The problem is you can't recover later if you have blown out the sky, especially if shooting color chromes.

 

[Jim Jones]

Most of my photography during 70 years (about 4000 rolls of Kodachrome, 4000 rolls of B&W, and some LF) has been non-commercial. In the early years, most filters appeared to be non-coated. These caused problems, especially in night photography. I quit using protective filters except where obviously needed. The resultant improvised lens cleaning caused the early retirement of the most used lens. Its replacement cost a tiny fraction of the film it had exposed. This seems like an acceptable trade-off between convenience and economy. Today's multi-coated lenses and filters make the use of multi-coated filters to protect lenses more reasonable. To extend this logic, always use an efficient lens hood.