What do you think of cheap filters

removed account4 · Apr 17, 2016

i bout very inexpensive diopters ( close up ) and step-down/up rings from a dealer off eBay
i've used them for 10 years and couldn't have been happier. i've also bought b/w (schneider ) filters
both clear/skylight and center filters and couldn't be happier.
often times you get what you pay for. on ebay sometimes it is hard to tell if theyare
name brands being sold, and resold: its hard to tell if the filters are screwed up, and it is best
to ask a waterfall of questions regarding condition before they are purchased.
i keep most if not all my expectations LOW that way if things arrive and are better than expected i am pretty happy.
i don't think plastic inexpensive filters can even compare to glass ones. the differences are probably noticeable .

YMMV

Alan Gales · Apr 17, 2016

seanE said:
So I spend 200 euro on a CV 35mm 2.5, And 200 on a fungus infected CV 15mm 4.5, then pop one filter out of a kit that cost me half the price of one recommended filter, and I will see a noticeable drop in image quality?, from your replies that looks like the case, Im looking to buy a good 50 or 90mm so i would like them to be future proof. Altho looking at the prices I might get A good polariser,
And some of the cheap effects filters to tie me over until i can afford better ones.

Thanks for your replies

Like mentioned earlier, a lot depends upon how large you are going to blow up the image. For me 35mm was good up to 8x10 print size. I have blown a few of my images up to 11x14 Cibachrome and they came out nice. I shot Zeiss glass on a Contax with Contax filters, Kodachrome 25 on a tripod. Lenses, filters, films and technique all have influence on sharpness.

alanrockwood · Apr 17, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
There is a difference and it matters. Here is a link to a series of filter tests that seem to have been done methodically and scientifically:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

You can read the whole thing or just the first four sections (very short) to see the results.

I've seen the results of stacking multiple bad filters together vs. good ones in order to show the difference is dramatic.

An interesting quote from the test report "We were very disappointed with the Heliopan products. The German filters are not only very expensive, but they also presented very mediocre optical parameters."

So maybe you don't always "get what you pay for".

chuck94022 · Apr 18, 2016

Interesting discussion. I just spent a frustrating weekend driving down through Big Sur and beyond, looking for a place to pull over for some large format shooting. The entire route was overwhelmed with tourists. When I finally did stop, I was unhappy with the state of my world of filters. I've collected HiTech, Cokin, and a large pack of Wratten gels of every possible type. I have all sorts of step ring combos for all the lenses I've collected over the years.

The enhanced frustration from the crowds pushed me over the edge to realize I needed to refactor my system. I decided to standardize on 77mm round glass screw on filters, with a step ring for each of my smaller lenses. The HiTech holder and glass will probably find an Apug or E*ay listing soon. I'll probably ditch the Cokin system (such as it is) too. The set of Wratten gels is very old, probably has some historical value... ;-)

I'm going with Breakthrough Photography for some ND filters (which I'll use on my digi-stuff too). Hoya HMC colored filters get the nod for my black and white filtering needs (Red, green, yellow, and orange).

Xmas · Apr 18, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
I'll use a cheap filter in a New York minute if it's not clouded with haze film or scratches. Or you can shoot the picture and take what pan film gives. At the moment, there's little other choice, as in slim to none. All the Japanese filters are basically usable. It's just not a time to be picky. What difference does it make? Either that, or what pan film gives, as-is.

Probably no detectable difference between cheap and dear filter?
There might just be the name on the ring.
Like the Zeiss lenses made by Cosina...
Maybe if you are shooting off a tripod with Panf and want a bill board 20x30, do we do that?
I tried a Planar, Summicron and Voighlander kept the Voightlander sold the other two.

RobC · Apr 18, 2016

What do I think of cheap filters? I think they're cheap.

blockend · Apr 18, 2016

A cheap filter is fine if it's clean, and you're not pointing towards the sun. A £2 filter outperforms a £80 filter that's slightly dirty. A clean lens beats both. Experiments with stacked UV filters are meaningless, as people typically only use one. There are many sharpness inhibitors, from atmospheric conditions to the enlarging lens used, of which the quality of filter glass comprises a tiny proportion.

mdarnton · Apr 18, 2016

Unless the folks who are giving advice here are shooting everything at f8, what we're seeing here is a classical example of pedantry over practicality. I use a random mix of filters, and I'll tell you, factually, that the difference bewteen the optimum stop for your lens and the stops you really use every day is going to have a whole lot bigger effect on the quality of your results than the filter you choose!

seanE · Apr 21, 2016

On a different note, How dose one calculate exposure when using colour filters and B/W film?, I ask as I'm still not decided on whether I'm keeping my m6, or m4, is ttl metering of an advantage when using filters. Im currently leaning towards keeping the m4 and getting an mr-4 or the like,

MattKing · Apr 21, 2016

It is always best to take a meter reading without the filter, and then apply the filter factor to that reading. The filter factor is a bit like your personal EI, because it can vary with the spectral response of the film.

TTl meters and through filter readings work well in some cases. But meters also have their own spectral responses.

Sirius Glass · Apr 21, 2016

I have never had a problem using a TTL metering with the filter, not even when shooting HIE.

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 21, 2016

MattKing said:
It is always best to take a meter reading without the filter, and then apply the filter factor to that reading. The filter factor is a bit like your personal EI, because it can vary with the spectral response of the film.

TTl meters and through filter readings work well in some cases. But meters also have their own spectral responses.

Well... I haven't found that to be particularly true in my individual case, where the filter factor is set in the baseline calibration (this is variable, based on observation of the scene at the time) and forms part of the overall metered reading. Everybody is likely to be different with their methodology.

Xmas · Apr 22, 2016

If it is a static landscape and the clouds are moving slowly then you need to bracket to get an optimal negative. Record in book if you want to not always have to bracket.

Film, and meter will be different in spectral sensitivity light can vary in colour all it takes is a cloud moving!

Worse with slide film, where you used a colour temperature meter...

If you are shooting hand held the filter degradation is the least of your problems.

Ignore the people who believe >$ means detectably better.

The MR meters spend time in repair shops many Leica dealers won't touch them.

Poisson Du Jour · Apr 22, 2016

Xmas said:
If it is a static landscape and the clouds are moving slowly then you need to bracket to get an optimal negative. Record in book if you want to not always have to bracket.

Film, and meter will be different in spectral sensitivity light can vary in colour all it takes is a cloud moving!

Worse with slide film, where you used a colour temperature meter...

If you are shooting hand held the filter degradation is the least of your problems.

Ignore the people who believe >$ means detectably better.

The MR meters spend time in repair shops many Leica dealers won't touch them.

"Worse with slide film"!??
Slide film does not need, never has needed and will not benefit from, a colour meter.
Peeps with their finger in too far angle for such "look at moi!" toys, or because they are mathematically colour blind.

Xmas · Apr 23, 2016

Poisson Du Jour said:
"Worse with slide film"!??
Slide film does not need, never has needed and will not benefit from, a colour meter.
Peeps with their finger in too far angle for such "look at moi!" toys, or because they are mathematically colour blind.

There was a standard for colour temperature filters, and a lot of colour correction filters sold, and I had a colour temperature meter as every pro cine team shooting in colour had.
People worried about the drift of the photo floods in temperature.
People used grey cards in shot to help the printers.
Slide film did not have the latitudes of negative.
So just how did you select a CC filter, it is way difficult subjectively.

cooltouch · Apr 24, 2016

Cheap filters are worth their weight in coke bottle bottoms. A cheap filter can seriously degrade a lens's image quality -- and I base this claim on experience.

Jim Noel · Apr 24, 2016

seanE said:
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Ex-Pro-77mm-...393053?hash=item5b2311ccdd:g:HlEAAOSwJQdXCUPV

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Ex-Pro-62mm-...311779?hash=item4d2cdf4623:g:UwMAAOSwstxVWmRo

I would never put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens.

RattyMouse · Apr 24, 2016

RalphLambrecht said:
a cheap UV filter degrades your image quality less than a greasy finger print on your front lens element.

Don't touch your lens then. Problem solved.

Xmas · Apr 24, 2016

Jim Noel said:
I would never put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens.

I don't have any expensive lenses...
Does that mean I can use cheap filters?
I normally rescue them from bargain 2nd hand junk bins in dusty camera shops.

narsuitus · Apr 24, 2016

I want thin optically clear glass; not thick tinted plastic.

I want a brass ring; not aluminum or plastic.

I want multiple coatings; not single coat or no coat.

I want durability; not something that self-destructs.

I want a rigid protective case; not a dirty little plastic bag.

I would not hesitate paying a cheap price for a filter; as long as it gives me what I want.

Filter by Narsuitus, on Flickr

cooltouch · Apr 24, 2016

Xmas said:
I don't have any expensive lenses...
Does that mean I can use cheap filters?
I normally rescue them from bargain 2nd hand junk bins in dusty camera shops.

I used to think that a filter didn't affect the optical performance of a lens much. I mean, I've seen the photos on the net taken with lenses that had shattered front elements, so how much could a cheap filter really affect a lens's image quality? And I assumed, "not much." Until a few months back. I have one of these ubiquitous "cheap" 400mm f/6.3 preset telephotos that used to be sold by Spiratone and Cambridge Camera and others back in the 70s and 80s for $60-70. Very simple design, but capable of decent performance. Well, I was planning on putting this telephoto on eBay because I had no use for it, and I decided that it would be easier to sell if I posted some images taken with the lens along with the eBay listing. Well, the images I was getting when shooting with this lens were simply awful, and I was surprised by this, knowing these lenses' reputation. Then I noticed that the lens had a no-name filter screwed onto the front. Hmm . . . I unscrewed the filter and took the same shots again -- and they were great! Exactly what I expected out of a lens like this -- which is actually very good.

So, I don't know why it is that a lens with a smashed front element can still deliver good photos while placing a crap filter in front of another lens totally destroys its capabilities. But I know now that it can happen and I no longer use off-brand filters at all unless I'm using them specifically as lens caps only.

LJH · Apr 25, 2016

IMO, too much emphasis is put on this subject.

Think to yourself, when was the last time you looked at a photo and said to yourself, "Geez, that image looks as though it was shot using a cheap filter"...

Doubt that thought has crossed many minds here.

LJH · Apr 25, 2016

cooltouch said:
I used to think that a filter didn't affect the optical performance of a lens much. I mean, I've seen the photos on the net taken with lenses that had shattered front elements, so how much could a cheap filter really affect a lens's image quality? And I assumed, "not much." Until a few months back. I have one of these ubiquitous "cheap" 400mm f/6.3 preset telephotos that used to be sold by Spiratone and Cambridge Camera and others back in the 70s and 80s for $60-70. Very simple design, but capable of decent performance. Well, I was planning on putting this telephoto on eBay because I had no use for it, and I decided that it would be easier to sell if I posted some images taken with the lens along with the eBay listing. Well, the images I was getting when shooting with this lens were simply awful, and I was surprised by this, knowing these lenses' reputation. Then I noticed that the lens had a no-name filter screwed onto the front. Hmm . . . I unscrewed the filter and took the same shots again -- and they were great! Exactly what I expected out of a lens like this -- which is actually very good.

So, I don't know why it is that a lens with a smashed front element can still deliver good photos while placing a crap filter in front of another lens totally destroys its capabilities. But I know now that it can happen and I no longer use off-brand filters at all unless I'm using them specifically as lens caps only.

Did you try it with an expensive filter? If so, this result is more about the lens that the filter at this stage.

cooltouch · Apr 25, 2016

No I haven't, but yours is a valid point. Perhaps I'll give it a try with a good filter. Obviously, I still have the lens. But it is eBay bound within the next day or two.

What do you think of cheap filters

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency