Inexpensive filter source

[Pieter12]

2. Of course Hollywood buys the best. What's a $100 filter in a $2M budget?

Hollywood doesn't buy anything. They rent it all. Many cinematographers will have their own filters and other bits of gear that they know and prefer or even have modified or designed to suit them, but the studios don't really own much equipment. And the rental companies buy what the studios/cinematographers want, quality gear being more in demand than junk.

 

[Vaughn]

What filter number is best for filtering out nonsence and oneupmanship? Or do I need two seperate filters for that? And can they be stacked?

I never seen a screw-on filter with a plastic threads.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

A sub-$5 filter? What size and type would that be? Gotta be from a garage sale or thrift store. I couldn't get a free one shipped to me for that price.

You obviously either did not read my original post, or did not comprehend it.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

What filter number is best for filtering out nonsence and oneupmanship? Or do I need two seperate filters for that? And can they be stacked?

I never seen a screw-on filter with a plastic threads.

Good one!

All inexpensive filters I have ever owned have plastic threads. And bodies.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Every cheap filter I bought from China was crap. IR filters. The glass fell out of one, and all three had serious threading issues. I learnt my lesson.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Hollywood doesn't buy anything. They rent it all. Many cinematographers will have their own filters and other bits of gear that they know and prefer or even have modified or designed to suit them, but the studios don't really own much equipment. And the rental companies buy what the studios/cinematographers want, quality gear being more in demand than junk.

Quite pedantic there. Regardless of ownership, it's still "Hollywood." Just like all the studios that are not in the geography called Hollywood within Los Angeles.

Or as locals say, "the industry."

I was commenting on someone else's comment which essentially said that HW always buys expensive, very best stuff.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Every cheap filter I bought from China was crap. IR filters. The glass fell out of one, and all three had serious threading issues. I learnt my lesson.

I've never had an issue. YMM Indeed V.

"China" is a broad brush. They make crap, and they make good stuff. But, for me, certainly willing to spend a few dollars to gamble on filter failure. One filter from Freestyle or the NYC boys buys four from China. Good odds.

 

[Wallendo]

The risk with Chinese filters is that you often don't know what you are getting. Sometimes it is a poorly constructed piece of plastic, and other times it is the same quality lens sold under a brand name that was run off the assembly line after hours.

I will often pick up a cheap Chinese filter on eBay just to see if I like the look the filter provides. If I don't like the look, I am only out a few dollars. If I do find it useful I can keep the filter, and if there are quality issues with the filter, I can buy a name-brand filter. Although, in complete honesty, I am more likely to pick up a used name-brand filter off eBay.

 

[mshchem]

Deep breath. To each his own.Back in the day, gelatin squeezed between glass. Fast forward to acetate color correction filters.
Adox is making acetate frame less filters. The OP is happy with the choice. I'm happy with the crazy horde of filters I've collected over 50 years . You never know when you are going to need a CC 30 Red original Nikon filter for color daylight underwater photography . In the original CP-2 case and box.

 

[GRHazelton]

I've been pleased with the range of used filters at filterfind.net. Tim knows his stuff; while his selection is necessarily not infinite, it is broad. Condition, make, etc are stated. Tim has solved some odd problems for me, for example he found a Series adapter for my Zeiss Contessa 35, on which the mount of the f2.8 Tessar has OUTSIDE threads.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As far as the quality, I would compare the image quality between an image with the filter and one with the naked lens. If I can't discern the difference, It's fine with me.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Of course the generally accepted better filter brands are better. Brass is a better material than aluminum. If you've ever left an aluminum filter on a lens and it welded itself on you would know that. Aluminum can bind too if it is put on too tight, for example when screwing a hood over a filter. You can avoid these issues, but they happen.

B+W, Heliopan etc. are made from better glass as well. I am not sure what glass Hoya uses. Some after market brands were actually Hoya, like Calumet. Some filters were made much better too, like Contax protection filters. Those were like armor for the front of your lens they were so thick.

I am not a filter snob myself. Any filter is better than no filter if you need a filter. I prefer the B+W or Hoya Coated filters though. I think most of my filters are Hoya coated which used to be the economical best. i don't know if they are anymore.

Not sure where you were buying $5 filters either. I distinctly remember buying a Tiffen 77mm UV filter in around 94 that was $30. I remember it because I bought it from Adorama and they send me a used one.... From my recollection even basic Tiffen filters were at least $15 back then.

 

[Maris]

My experience with cheap but optically ok Chinese infrared filters:
IR680 77mm filter ordered and delivered but when measured it's a IR720. Vendor had no idea.
IR720 77mm filter ordered and delivered. When measured it is a genuine IR720 and works well.
IR720 46mm filter ordered and delivered. When measured it is a IR900 and no film sees what this filter transmits. Vendor had no idea.
Total outlay about $50.
I guess the old principle applies - yer pays yer money and ye takes yer chances.

 

[Henning Serger]

An FYI.

I remember buying basic B&W contrast and polarizing filters for, say, $5 thirty years ago. Now, I see mostly $20 and up. Beyond inflation. Not the proverbial rocket science technology.

I found a source on eBay, Chinese, of course. I bought three 67mm filters for under $14. This particular vendor had a long shipping time, but they came a week before first date promised. Interestingly, from a business viewpoint, apparently shipped to a USA address and then forwarded. Whatever.

The hard plastic cases were made for retail display on pegs; bulky. But if you use a soft holder, no issue.

Source: https://www.ebay.com/itm/254025852174

I would not have spent the $75 or more to buy domestic to make better pictures.

An alternative with an excellent price performance ratio are the ADOX SNAP-ON Filters:
https://www.fotoimpex.com/cameras-accessories/filters/colour-correction-filters/
Extremely cheap but with quite good quality. I was positively surprised when I tested them. No problem to make 30x40 centimeter prints from 35mm negatives.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Vaughn]

...All inexpensive filters I have ever owned have plastic threads. And bodies.

I have never seen one with plastic threads...plastic lens, but metal threads. I have worn glasses for over five decades...I guess that created a bit of a bias about the glass I have between me and my work. I do not want/need top quality...old Red Dot Artars lenses in barrels are fine with me, and any modern plasmat works fine. And there are times when a Chinese magnifying glass works perfectly as a lens. If I am going to screw on a filter, I usually wish it to be of equal quality of the lens. Wild guess, I use a filter on 10 to 15% of my images.

Magnifying lens on a Speed Graphic, Type 55 film, contact print. (no filter)

 

[R.Gould]

SRB in the UK make there own filters,mounts Etc and a ;lot more, about half the price of most others, in pretty much all sizes from small to large, I have bought several from them for my classic cssmeras, and they will make to order, Quality, very good , mounts are all metel, filters are glass
Richard

 

[AgX]

The threads on the top line filters are much more likely to be brass than aluminum. They are constructed in a much better way.

But they are also of much more weight, sometimes even of more bulk.

By the way, I assume chromed brass would be the best to avoid thread-sticking.

 

[John51]

Paying more doesn't guarantee better but the advantage that respected brand names have is that you know you are not buying junk. (Until some carpet bagger destroys the good reputation of a brand for quick profits.)

If the only complaints are wrt value for money, then paying less for a brand name is the way to go imo. I look for old B+W filters. Last year I got a nos "A" Series B+W 49mm skylight. From the early 70s or late 60s going by the packaging. Price on the case is £7.50. I paid £5.99. More modern in the way of packaging was a B+W polarising filter. That cost me all of £1.20.

 

[Nodda Duma]

It’s interesting sometimes to see two very similar, but at the same time very different markets which overlap in product use. The quality of filters and the consumer market’s race to the bottom of the barrel compared to non-consumer optical systems is one example.

In the professional optics world, colored filter glass pretty much either comes from Hoya or Schott. I’m confident in a filter that traces back to those manufacturers. I also tend to buy filters with AR coatings to reduce the risk of ghosting in the image. Those tend to be more expensive, but not insanely so. My opinion. Kodak (Wratten) used to be in that mix, but they haven’t shown much interest in that market for many years.


For completeness, more exacting filtering requires more precise filters than the colored glass we are familiar with. Dichroic or interference filters come from a host of suppliers that will be unfamiliar to the consumer market, but they have much more precise (consistent) filtering characteristics and are an order of magnitude more expensive than what we buy. Places like Edmund Optics and Thorlabs are the low-cost catalog store entry point into those types of products. Melles Griot, Semrock, Knight Optical and a host of others are more commonly used (in my industry) sources for those.

 

[AgX]

I had some discussions here in the past on the use of AR coatings on filters. (You may remember I argued on the little effect these two reflective surfaces have on the whole system of say 26 such surfaces (zoom lens).)

Concerning the issue of single-coated versus multi-coated surfaces Heliopan in 1981 stated that multi-coating had over single-coating at filters no perceivable effect. And thus they refrain from the former. They even ommitted any coating on their polarizers.
Today in times of coating rage they say the contrary... that multicoating is a must...


Such we should keep in mind when discussing quality issues. "Quality" is a marketing thing too.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Yeah I agree. Technical information is definitely filtered by management and marketing. That’s not exclusive to the consumer world.

 

[guangong]

More or less, you get what you pay for. There is always the unexpected bargain, and there is also the irrational luxury market, but basically you get what you pay for. Nikon Fs, Leicas, Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads and similar cameras were quite expensive when new, but look at how many are still in active use today. Lenses are made of much more than glass. Machining quality and quality of steels, for example. I doubt if there are that many functioning Ricohs today compared to the number sold. Cost reflects better materials and design. The same goes for the lowly filter. I still drive my 38 yr old MB. How many Prius will be around 35 years from now. I suspect that the OP has been taken to the cleaners many times in his quest for el cheapo bargains.

 

[chip j]

ROLEV (Germany) used to make glass filters in plastic mounts. Horrible to remove!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I guess if you want to drive around on the road in a car with three temporary spares and only one real tire, it's your right. But don't complain if you get stuck somewhere. Just how many filters does someone need anyway? I'll admit I have quite a set; but there's a distinct reason for every one of them. And because none of those reasons are half-assed, I don't use junk filters. Why bother? Lots of my filters are for specific lab applications, or left over from previous architectural photography roles. But for general outdoor shooting, which in my case often involves serious weather issues, I am nitpicky about coatings. Hard multicoatings not only resist dirt better, but condensation. They don't fog up nearly as easily. They're also more resistant to cleaning. That's all a big deal in the mountains. The weather can change very quickly. But I do my homework. I am well aware of the ubiquitous BS coefficient of the marketing profession. Depending on the specifics, I use glass filters from Hoya, B&W,
Singh-Ray, Heliopan - all reputable. I also have a number of exotic Wratten gels and a few specialized Tiffen glass ones, but for lab use, not in the field. The Tiffens collect grime like honey attracts bears, and have to be constantly cleaned; but they do offer a big selection. I think HMC Hoyas represent the best cost to performance ratio. They are a major state-of-the-art coatings company; don't underestimate them. But if want brass instead of aluminum, you'll have to go elsewhere and pay more. Just don't overtighten em to begin with.

 

[AgX]

I have hardly any issue cleaning old style coated filters. But the few repellant coated filters I have give me the greatest trouble resulting in smear.
And so far I have not used them under weather circumstances that made me realize their benefits, though they may be.