Inexpensive filter source

[Paul Verizzo]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

I am not aware of many (Tiffen, Lee, Singh-Ray?) domestic manufacturers. Filters for black and white photography are not a very high demand item. Vendors sell them for what the deem the prevailing rate.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Paul, I do not understand. Are you looking for new filters only? Used filters in common sizes, like 49mm, 52mm, 58mm, etc. are plentiful on eBay. The ones I have bought in various sizes looked unused.

 

[Luckless]

Adjusting for inflation from '89, a now low demand filter currently going for $20 has slightly more than doubled in price from your initial $5.

Compared to what I'll spend on the rolls of film I'll use behind these filters, I don't think the lower end options seem all that expensive at their $15-25 range from a reliable retailer.

 

[jim10219]

I've used several high end and cheap filters. For the most part, they perform about the same. Some things I've noticed is the cheap ones aren't multicoated. The screw mounts are as cleanly milled. And the polarizer and ND filters can vary in color temperature. But some of the name brands also vary in color temperature. I've also had an issue with a cheap graduated ND filter (Cokin style) having some blotches.

My point being, I've seen some online articles talking about how bad cheap filters are and have never seen the issues they talk about in person. But I have seen differences in quality between the cheap and name brand filters. If you don't mind taking the risk, you'll probably find most work fine in most circumstances. But if you're not willing to take the risk, then buy name brand.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There is a correlation between the quality of the filter you slap on the front of your lens and the resulting image. Amateurs will debate this point endlessly to and fro, but from a professional standpoint, it is true and holds.

Thirty years ago, a polarising filter would set me back $32, and that made me cringe. The price increased with the size of the filter, nothing new there, then or now. Today, filter prices are a point of much contention, hubris and misunderstanding, v.i.z.: "why should I buy a German filter when I can buy one from China for a tenth of the price -- what rip-offs!"

Chinese filters are the least likely to be the choice of serious photographers intent on gaining maximum image quality for their investment, especially lenses which are highly corrected e.g. ED, SLD, CfA2, asph/mixed) -- this is one point many photographers don't understand nor appreciate. The differences between Chinese (where quality control is non-existant) and higher end marque brands are in the quality and spectral definition of the coatings (front and rear), the type of material used in the mount, water resistance between mount and glass and particularly, in the case of polarising filters, the quality of the polarising material, sealing and planar finish of the glass. I can guarantee that you will see a disturbing fall in quality if you are putting on a $5.00 Chinese filter on a $4,500 Zeiss Batis lens. In best practice you would not put any filter at all on such a lens. What would you be trying to prove by saving cost at the expensive of imaging quality?

A great many photographers have no qualms about paying $700 for a B+W UV, Skylight or KSM filter, and many will have a swag of such filters in their kit. This bit about pricey filters is a point that Zeiss also presses when you come away with their flagship E-mount lenses.

 

[removed account4]

A great many photographers have no qualms about paying $700 for a B+W UV, Skylight or KSM filter, and many will have a swag of such filters in their kit. This bit about pricey filters is a point that Zeiss also presses when you come away with their flagship E-mount lenses.

I only use B+W filters on my Lensbaby Muse because I saved so much $$ on lens, but on my Saphire and Schneider XXL Fine Art 550 I spent so much money on the lenses by comparison I only can afford cheap Chinese filters. I can't really tell the difference to be honest, but then again I typically wipe my lenses clean with my t-shirt after breathing the lens.

 

[AgX]

The differences between Chinese (where quality control is non-existant) and higher end marque brands are in the quality and spectral definition of the coatings (front and rear), the type of material used in the mount, water resistance between mount and glass and particularly, in the case of polarising filters, the quality of the polarising material, sealing and planar finish of the glass.

Are you not over dramatising? I agree on a parallelity issue (I assume planarity a lesser issue.)

But for the rest?

Worldwide there are only very few glassworks that make filter glass. And all filter manufacturers have to buy from these few.
Most of my fliters are not coated. (From reputable manufacturers.)
The mounts are either from painted brass or anodized aluminium. (I got one filter in plastic threaded mount.)
What is the idea of a watertight mount??

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Responses not surprising.

"But........"

My criteria, more and more, is can a viewer know the difference? Film, developer, technique, filter brand/source.

I've long been amazed how some companies (B+W) have conned so many into thinking their products are so superior. My god, B&W filters are long ago some kind of rocket science.

Call me the kid pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[MattKing]

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There is a correlation between the quality of the filter you slap on the front of your lens and the resulting image. Amateurs will debate this point endlessly to and fro, but from a professional standpoint, it is true and holds.

Thirty years ago, a polarising filter would set me back $32, and that made me cringe. The price increased with the size of the filter, nothing new there, then or now. Today, filter prices are a point of much contention, hubris and misunderstanding, v.i.z.: "why should I buy a German filter when I can buy one from China for a tenth of the price -- what rip-offs!"

Chinese filters are the least likely to be the choice of serious photographers intent on gaining maximum image quality for their investment, especially lenses which are highly corrected e.g. ED, SLD, CfA2, asph/mixed) -- this is one point many photographers don't understand nor appreciate. The differences between Chinese (where quality control is non-existant) and higher end marque brands are in the quality and spectral definition of the coatings (front and rear), the type of material used in the mount, water resistance between mount and glass and particularly, in the case of polarising filters, the quality of the polarising material, sealing and planar finish of the glass. I can guarantee that you will see a disturbing fall in quality if you are putting on a $5.00 Chinese filter on a $4,500 Zeiss Batis lens. In best practice you would not put any filter at all on such a lens. What would you be trying to prove by saving cost at the expensive of imaging quality?

A great many photographers have no qualms about paying $700 for a B+W UV, Skylight or KSM filter, and many will have a swag of such filters in their kit. This bit about pricey filters is a point that Zeiss also presses when you come away with their flagship E-mount lenses.

Your argument is based on the assumption that a higher price equals higher quality, which is not always true.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I've long been amazed how some companies (B+W) have conned so many into thinking their products are so superior. My god, B&W filters are long ago some kind of rocket science.

So, by that logic, we can say that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax... the rest of them and quality lens manufacturers, have conned their way into our hearts?
Would you also say that the optical products from Schneider Kreuznach are also a con-job??

What is the idea of a watertight mount??

Where moisture enters a poorly constructed polariser (as a good example), the laminate will be compromised. Bubbling and smears visible in the filter are symptomatic of this. Immerse a B+W KSM C-POL in soapy water. Leave it there for 4 hours, bring it out. Let it dry. Tell me what you see. No water penetration because it is a sealed system (these filters also do not break easily when dropped). You pay a steep price for this, but is a filter a long-term reliable investment (like the S-K lenses), or something you prefer to throw away after 4 rolls?

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

Yes indeed. Some early Hoya filters were aluminium, and stripped very easily. I have never experienced a jammed or resistant filter from the dedicated filter marques (that would be highly unusual!), but a Canon polariser (1993 I think) wedged itself firmly on an early EF zoom. Frustratingly, it could not be removed until I had returned home and sprayed it with WD-40. This got it off, but also proved that Canon polariser, of that time, was of quite poor quality, with easy scratching one of the most glaring problems. Construction quality and techniques across all manufacturers has improved many fold over since those days.

My criteria, more and more, is can a viewer know the difference? Film, developer, technique, filter brand/source.

I don't really think you have seen what a $15 filter can do on a highly corrected lens. If manufacturers (Canon, L-series lenses, Nikon, Zeiss/Sony E-series) firmly recommend against cheap, lower quality filters, why would you work against the grain? Because your 'criteria' is somehow stronger or superior (but ultimately, unfounded) to that of a lens manufacturer? Really now.

B+W, Hoya, Kenko and Tiffen all do offer cheaper filters than those which cost a fortune. We have moved on since the days you recall filters costing $5.00. China has them, if you dare. It is up to you to have the experience and skill required to put which filter from which price bracket to the best application. It isn't and never was 'rocket science'.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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

Matt, that is too simplistic. Brass mount filters may be constructed better, especially of you compare them to bargain consumer filters (such as "protection" filters sold to uninformed buyers in the 1970s and 1980s - well, maybe even today). But the main reason for using brass on the filter mount is to precent seizing when a filter is left attached to an aluminum lens for a long period (weeks or months). And brass is low friction. But an older aluminum filter from one of the major brands (Canon, Olympus Nikon, etc.) will be just as well assembled and will be fine on an aluminum lens as long as it is not over-tightened. As for the coating, that will vary from filter to filter. Some are uncoated, some single anti-reflection coated, some multi-coated.

 

[Arklatexian]

Adjusting for inflation from '89, a now low demand filter currently going for $20 has slightly more than doubled in price from your initial $5.

Compared to what I'll spend on the rolls of film I'll use behind these filters, I don't think the lower end options seem all that expensive at their $15-25 range from a reliable retailer.

Many here will probably not agree with me but I still prefer "screw-in" adapter rings with "drop-in" filters. Good quality drop-in filters and extremely hard to find other than new. I like to use sunshades with these adapter rings also. With the proper step-up rings on the smaller diameter lenses I can have one size filter fit all of my lenses. This is the way things were done 50, 60 years ago and I find works pretty darn good today........Regards!

 

[MattKing]

Matt, that is too simplistic. Brass mount filters may be constructed better, especially of you compare them to bargain consumer filters (such as "protection" filters sold to uninformed buyers in the 1970s and 1980s - well, maybe even today).

You are right, my post was poorly worded. It ought to have been:
"The threads on the top line filters are much more likely to be brass than aluminum. In addition, the top line filters are almost always constructed in a much better way."

 

[AgX]

Garyh, I now realize that with a watertight mount you referred to polarizers. That issue is a very old one, from the 30s. Back then polarizers were either based on a crystal, crystrals or dyes embedded in watersensitive synthetic. This changed to my undrstanding meanwhile.
In any case the several faulty polarizers I have come across I could not relate to an edge-diffusion issue.

I got a large B+W brass filter bound to a Soligor Aluminium filter, to a degree that with none of my tricks I could get them apart. That should not even have happened If I understand your argumentation on thread materials right.

By the way, Roger Cicala made some interesting tests on filters.

So far I have not spent more than 1€ for any filter I got.

 

[ozphoto]

You do get what you pay for, but everyone's needs differ.

I purchased a Tamron 112mm filter for my 300 f2.8 lens years ago - it worked perfectly. When I needed a 24mm filter for my Rollei, I purchased a Hoya version (not cheap!) but the thread was too short and it fell out - it wouldn't screw in far enough. I eventually found a B+W version on eB** from a seller in Germany. His price was very, very good and it fits perfectly.

I've used Hoya (and other cheaper filters) on my 35mm gear for many, many years, but in the case of the little Rollei, cheap filters were useless. Would I pay $$$ for a filter? Not at the present time, the cheaper versions suit me well, but I'd happily buy the more expensive version if it was the only alternative.

Naturally YMMV.

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="Paul Verizzo, post: 2166810, member: 24098"

My criteria, more and more, is can a viewer know the difference? Film, developer, technique, filter brand/source.

.[/QUOTE]
If you can see no difference and nor can the people who view your pictures then there is no difference and you have a bargain. That's the end of the story surely? All that will happen is that those who are convinced that cheap is a problem will continue to think that and say so and those with similar experience to yourself will continue to believe that cheap is OK

It is called entrenchment of positions.

pentaxuser

 

[guangong]

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.

I don’t remember any quality filters going for $5 thirty years ago. I bought most of my filters a decade or before that and many filters sold for big bucks...especially polaroid filters. This was especially true for BW, Leitz and Zeiss. Filters for Hasselblad and Rollei were quite expensive.

Tiffen filters, American made, were and are standard in cinematography. Unless buying from a blind, crippled newsboy, I learned long ago that nothing of good quality comes cheap in the art supplies world, including photography.

 

[mshchem]

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

+1

 

[Paul Verizzo]

+1

So?

Inexpensive filters, like these, use plastic frames. So what? Probably less likely to get stuck in the lens, more inherent lubricity that metal. I admit, a conjecture.

 

[Vaughn]

Bought my last filters at a camera show -- a good way to go...got a great price on a B&W filter.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Wow, funny and passionate responses. A lot of emotion and "Yes, but," arguments.

A few responses:

1. No, you don't necessarily get what you pay for. Especially in a piece of flippin' colored flat glass.

2. Of course Hollywood buys the best. What's a $100 filter in a $2M budget? And why does Hollywood apply to me? My budget is Social Security. I've been amused for many decades at those who can afford expensive things advising me that "It's worth it." No, it's often just believing that more money means better stuff. Sometimes true, often not. A lazy way of allegedly determining quality.

3. If y'all think that The Sacred Brands have an exclusive on quality lenses (and this thread was about flat, dyed glass, not lenses), you are wrong. A long time ago it was difficult to design and make a good lens. Paper, slide rules, high engineering costs, time, and hand grinding of glass. Now we have these things called computers and machines. Good lenses are now at least being close to a commodity. They were even thirty years ago. Lesser known companies often designed and/or made lenses for The Big Boys. Pentax, is now owned by Ricoh. Has the lens quality changed? I doubt it.

Ricoh made a 50mm lens that tested better than the equivalent Pentax back in the day. I have both and strangely, I can't tell the difference in images. That was a snark. Kiron made the highly acclaimed Vivitar 1 series lenses and Kiron lenses were rated as good as anyone's, and some specific lenses, better than much more expensive ones. Anyone who's been around photography for as long as I have knows that the design, making, and marketing of cameras and lenses is often musical chairs.

4. I've no evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me that expensive filters are also made in China, nowadays and for the most part. True, there MAY be better design and quality control, but it's not like filters are cutting edge science, ya know?

4. I reiterate: Better using a sub-$5 filter than not using a very expensive one that I can't afford.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[adelorenzo]

No, you don't necessarily get what you pay for. Especially in a piece of flippin' colored flat glass.

I did note that the description for the filters says they are "plexiglass" aka acrylic.