Does filter quality matter?

[runswithsizzers]

After some quick and dirty testing, I believe I have answered part of my own question to my satisfaction. Subjectively, looking at sharpness and resolution, I could not see any bothersome differences between my filtered shots and unfiltered shots. This was true no matter whether I was using top shelf filters (B+W MRC), or the Toshiba filters. What I have not tested for is contrast and flair under contra jour lighting.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're only as good as you're weakest link, whatever that might be.

 

[MattKing]

You're only as good as you're weakest link, whatever that might be.

However, some links in a complex chain have more effect in more circumstances than others do.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, like masking tape residue and permanent fingerprints and scratches on old gel filters. Saw plenty of that in the old days, when stock photo types were lugging their 4x5 plus seven lenses and twenty different filters out in the filed just for sake of magazine reproductions often smaller than the original film itself ! Back then I routinely carried an even heavier camera, but only a single lens and two filters, and got plenty of great shots anyway, suitable for serious enlargement.

 

[RDW]

After some quick and dirty testing, I believe I have answered part of my own question to my satisfaction. Subjectively, looking at sharpness and resolution, I could not see any bothersome differences between my filtered shots and unfiltered shots. This was true no matter whether I was using top shelf filters (B+W MRC), or the Toshiba filters. What I have not tested for is contrast and flair under contra jour lighting.

The last point is where you'll see the biggest difference, between different filters and when comparing filtered/unfiltered. This old test took a large selection of the UV filters that were available at the time and shot with them in conditions where you'd expect to see flare:
https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
From the images, there are some pretty big differences (you can ignore the stuff about UV absorbance). Uncoated filters were pretty poor, and multicoated were better than single-coated. Today, I would choose filters with (a) multi-coating, (b) an 'easy clean' layer (multi-coated filters without this, like Hoya's old Pro-1 and Super HMC ranges, tend to smear when you clean them) and (c) high quality optical glass (which should be a given in the multi-coated ranges from Hoya or B+W). Hoya Fusion / Evo filters are quite reasonably priced. Their HD range are more expensive but tougher. B+W MRC and MRC-Nano are both excellent, and they come in brass mounts that are less likely to bind.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The last point is where you'll see the biggest difference, between different filters and when comparing filtered/unfiltered. This old test took a large selection of the UV filters that were available at the time and shot with them in conditions where you'd expect to see flare:
https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
From the images, there are some pretty big differences (you can ignore the stuff about UV absorbance). Uncoated filters were pretty poor, and multicoated were better than single-coated. Today, I would choose filters with (a) multi-coating, (b) an 'easy clean' layer (multi-coated filters without this, like Hoya's old Pro-1 and Super HMC ranges, tend to smear when you clean them) and (c) high quality optical glass (which should be a given in the multi-coated ranges from Hoya or B+W). Hoya Fusion / Evo filters are quite reasonably priced. Their HD range are more expensive but tougher. B+W MRC and MRC-Nano are both excellent, and they come in brass mounts that are less likely to bind.

I expect you are probably right about coatings (or lack thereof) having a greater effect than the quality of the glass itself. But for my purposes, I rarely shoot with a direct light source in the image frame, and I always use a lens hood. If I am shooting under conditions where I'd expect flare, then I'll either welcome the flair - or if not, I'll remove the filter.

I already have a B+W MRC polarizing filter for my digital zoom, and I now have enough stepup rings so I can mount that on my film camera prime lenses.

About the only other filter I might need to upgrade is a yellow filter for the film cameras. I just shot a roll using an uncoated Toshiba yellow filter under bright sunny conditions (using a lens hood). I did not notice any flare while shooting, but I have not developed the negs yet. I will evaluate those negatives carefully for contrast.

 

[AgX]

I expect you are probably right about coatings (or lack thereof) having a greater effect than the quality of the glass itself.

The examples linked to just show the opposite, that the effect of alleged uncoated versus coated filter is minime compared to no-filter at all. Ghosting as such is complex.

And concerning the quality of the glass, for instance non-parallelity of the filter surfaces would form a weak prism.
In that test the glass itself was only measured for transmission, but the effect of this transmission not shown.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The examples linked to just show the opposite, that the effect of alleged uncoated versus coated filter is minime compared to no-filter at all. Ghosting as such is complex.

And concerning the quality of the glass, for instance non-parallelity of the filter surfaces would form a weak prism.
In that test the glass itself was only measured for transmission, but the effect of this transmission not shown.

Honestly, I did not really study the linked test results. I was responding to RDWs comments about the test results.

 

[runswithsizzers]

As posted, my original question was poorly worded, and I apologize to all for for my lack of clarity.

Obviously, filter quality does matter. Nobody wants crap filters.

But how much filter quality matters - from the practical standpoint of whether or not it is visible on my negatives - is less clear.

Considering that I am using moderately good lenses from Pentax and Konica, but not the really high-end stuff from Leica, or whoever - and considering I'm using faster films, hand held - and considering I am not making giant enlargements - what I was really wondering is, how good is good enough? My question should have been worded something more like, "Is there enough difference in image quality when comparing filters from such brands such as Canon, Minolta, Vivitar, Toshiba, Hoya, etc. to notice, when looking at moderate enlargements of real-world negatives?"

I now realize this question is probably impossible to answer because there is so much uncertainty about who actually made many of the filters offered by these brands over the years. Furthermore, some brands offered filters at different price points, but the technical differences which might affect image quality are not always clear from the marketing hype. In the linked test (from 2009) Hoya filters were ranked the top three, but also #14 out of 16. What I still don't know is if I would be able to see the difference between #1 and #14 on my negatives made with my gear? Based on my brief initial evaluation, my Toshiba filter seems to be good enough - for me - for now.

Thanks to all who replied! But, I am over it, and now I need to go process a couple of rolls of film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Better glass, better coatings, brass versus aluminum, better brands incrementally add up, however I have been consistently able to get filters in excellent condition used for much lower prices. It just takes some looking around. If the filter is connected by a bayonet mount the choices of manufacturers is greatly limited but somehow the availability of high quality used bayonet filers goes up. Go figure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Aluminum tends to bind more frequently than brass. That said none of my filters have brass mounts.
Correction: Some of my filters have brass mounts and I did not know it.

 

[RDW]

The examples linked to just show the opposite, that the effect of alleged uncoated versus coated filter is minime compared to no-filter at all. Ghosting as such is complex.

How do you mean? Comparing (e.g.) the 'tree' flare images for the four B+W filters, the two MRC multicoated versions are much better than the corresponding standard (single coated?) versions. But even the MRC shots are a little worse than the shots without filters. The shot with the (presumably uncoated) Tiffen is substantially worse than that with any of the B+W filters, and the transmission plot shows that about 10% of light in the visible range isn't getting through.

 

[AgX]

There are two alleged uncoated filters, compare them to the coated Heliopan that scored bad. And there is practically no difference, thus in this extreme test the coated one necessarily being the better one does not come true.

One may also ask which practical relevance the night-scene test has.

My advice: test your filters with your lenses under circumstances typical for your work. If the filter introduces a degradation that you find hard to tolerate, try (if possible) a high-end filter under same or similar circumstances against your filter.

 

[RDW]

There are two alleged uncoated filters, compare them to the coated Heliopan that scored bad. And there is practically no difference, thus in this extreme test the coated one necessarily being the better one does not come true.

One may also ask which practical relevance the night-scene test has.

My advice: test your filters with your lenses under circumstances typical for your work. If the filter introduces a degradation that you find hard to tolerate, try (if possible) a high-end filter under same or similar circumstances against your filter.

There are two Heliopan filters. The multicoated one does better than the one with 'standard' (probably single) coating, but not as well as the multicoated filters from B+W or Hoya. I think this just tells that multicoating is better than single coating (as we'd expect), but that not all multicoating is created equal (which is hardly surprising). Comparing between brands there are other variables, like the basic quality of the glass, though I think both B+W and Heliopan use Schott optical glass. The awful Tiffen, which makes no claims about coating, may well be uncoated but also have poorer quality glass. The overall rankings in this test also factor in UV absorption, which probably doesn't matter to most of us. Otherwise, there's not much to choose between Hoya and B+W, except the brass mounts in the latter and the tougher glass in Hoya's HD range (not tested here, but probably optically comparable to something like Pro1, while being easier to clean).

For night scenes with point sources of light I'd generally avoid using a filter at all (you rarely need one anyway, except for something like rain protection). I agree about testing what you have, but if buying new for general purpose use (which might include shooting into the light) I'd generally stick to one of the high quality multicoated ranges from a proven brand like B+W or Hoya.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sirius - given the extreme temp swings I've encountered even on the same day in SW canyons and during extreme elevation changes in the mountains, I've had dimensional expansion "stuck" issues even with brass filters numerous times. Best simply not to over-tighten any of them. Another trick would be be use a narrow strip of very thin teflon plumbers tape if leaving a certain one on for a prolonged period. Sometimes the slightly less rigid nature of compact rim aluminum rings is more the issue. One needs to counterintuitively apply LESS grip to them when attempting to unscrew them, or they distort and bind a little. When all else fails, I use a plastic ZipTie as a wrench.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Sirius - given the extreme temp swings I've encountered even on the same day in SW canyons and during extreme elevation changes in the mountains, I've had dimensional expansion "stuck" issues even with brass filters numerous times. Best simply not to over-tighten any of them. Another trick would be be use a narrow strip of very thin teflon plumbers tape if leaving a certain one on for a prolonged period. Sometimes the slightly less rigid nature of compact rim aluminum rings is more the issue. One needs to counterintuitively apply LESS grip to them when attempting to unscrew them, or they distort and bind a little. When all else fails, I use a plastic ZipTie as a wrench.

I have experienced the same binding problem. Sometimes applying a bit less pressure lets the filter loosen.

An old-time photographers' trick: rub the filter threads on your nose to add a minute amount of oil. (Yes, really, use your nose).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I carry wide rubber bands and plastic filter wrenches with my camera gear for that reason.

 

[DF]

Yup. Kentmere 400, no filter:

Did you burn-in the sky/cloud part? It's O.K. if you don't want to say....

 

[AgX]

Concerning the major topic of filter coatings:


In 1981 Heliopan stated that the benefit of multilayer coatings over single layer coatings is insignificant and that multilayer coatings are less scratch resistant.
Thus they only would multilayer coat by custom order.

 

[GRHazelton]

Check filterfind.net. Brother Tim has an excellent selection of filters, etc., graded as to quality. He has found unusual items for me several times, for example my Zeiss Ikon Contessa's lens threads are on the OUTSIDE; nevertheless Tim found a Series filter holder, several filters, a lens hood and a nice little leather case to hold the whole ensemble. IRRC he also had some filters for my Vitessa L; those filters use an interrupted thread to attach to the f2 Ultron. The filters will also allow mounting the Ultron's lens shade, which is made of "Unobtainium."

 

[Huss]

Did you burn-in the sky/cloud part? It's O.K. if you don't want to say....

No. Just scanned the neg w my digicam, converted the image using negativelabpro. If it was a colour image, the clouds would also have looked very dramatic, it was a great skt.

 

[Huss]

Apologies for posting a digital image. I took this through my dirty windshield with my Fuji. Pretty sure my dirty windshield, maybe 18 inches away from the lens, is going to be waaaaay worse than the worst filter you can buy.

 

[RDW]

Concerning the major topic of filter coatings:


In 1981 Heliopan stated that the benefit of multilayer coatings over single layer coatings is insignificant and that multilayer coatings are less scratch resistant.
Thus they only would multilayer coat by custom order.

The tests tell a different story in situations where flare is an issue.

Heliopan standard (probably single) coated:

UV filters test - Heliopan ES 72mm UV-0

...

www.lenstip.com

Heliopan multi-coated:

UV filters test - Heliopan ES 72mm UV-0 SH-PMC

...

www.lenstip.com

Flare is clearly worse in the former. If you're not shooting into the light the differences may be much smaller, of course, and even a decent uncoated filter may not be visibly worse than the multi-coated version.

Coatings have also improved in the last 40 years in terms of scratch resistance and ease of cleaning. B+W MRC coating is supposedly harder than the glass underneath, and in the comparison above also does better than Heliopan's equivalent in the flare resistance test:

UV filters test - B+W 72mm 010M UV-Haze MRC

...

www.lenstip.com

 

[guangong]

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

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?