Cheap vs. Expensive CLEAR filters

B

bsacks14

New member
Hello, I just got my first real lens, a Nikon 28-70 2.8 and need to buy a clear filter just for protection. I know there are plenty of examples of why you should not skimp on a polarizing filter, but for a plain CLEAR glass filter, is there a real advantage to the more expensive ($100+) than the cheaper Tiffen/Bower/China ones?

Thanks for any advice
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
Cheap filter glass tends to reflect more. It may not always be optically uniform. I buy mid grade and then if I'm shooting where I absolutely want the best quality I take the filter off but make sure I keep a lens hood on.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I hope you DIDN'T read up on the all the arguments about why you shouldn't use a filter for protection because you're going to hear them all soon enough right here in this thread.

My short answer, if you're going to use a UV filter for protection, use a Tiffen. They're fine. Really.
 
Last edited:
K

Kodiak

Senior Member
•

Hey bsacks14,

There are two points in this,

1. The optical aspect.
It is no more necessary to use any glass for optical reasons in front of your lens.​

2. The safety aspect.
All… I say all my lens have a clear filter for safety reason. Except my 14-24 mm ƒ2,8.​

So, there we are… seams easy. BUT IT IS NOT! Because if you put a filter on your lens for safety
reasons, it will have an optical effect on your takes!

So we are back to square 1.

1. The optical aspect.
It is no more necessary to use any glass for optical reasons in front of your lens.
… but you should get a good one!​
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
bsacks14 said:
But for a plain CLEAR glass filter, is there a real advantage to the more expensive ($100+) than the cheaper Tiffen/Bower/China ones?

Thanks for any advice
Click to expand...

I want you to think about something. If there is a really old house in your area and I mean REALLY old, I want you to go and look at the window glass in that house.

You will see tiny ripples and, in some cases even bubbles. Consider this level of quality to be the cheaper end of the spectrum of glass.

How well are your images going to turn out shooting THROUGH that glass?

Protection from the elements is only one aspect of a clear glass filter. If protection is the ONLY criteria, then the lens cap is all you need. You want the glass to be as optically pure

as possible. It takes far less materials and time to make crappy glass than it does to make the best.

Hope this helps to clarify (pun intended) your question.

JMTCW

​Pete
 
K

Kodiak

Senior Member
bsacks14 said:
but for a plain CLEAR glass filter, is there a real advantage to the more expensive ($100+) than the cheaper Tiffen/Bower/China ones?
Click to expand...

There is a point where a line should be drawn! I, for one, would not contemplate a
minute 100$ for clear glass! There is a "www" full of reports and reviews on every-
thing…

Take the time, you earn that money trading it for your time. Save and earn it again
by doing some homework! I you ask me to buy you a filter, I will… but you would not
know the thinking behind it. Knowledge is power I was told, also the power to save and
spend with an educated decision!

Have a good time!
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Put Your Money Where Your Filter Is... Or Isn't??

Based on the "cheap filters degrade image quality" argument, and purely as a hypothetical question right now, I'm curious...

If were to post say, 25 photographs in this thread, who here would be willing to try their hand at identifying which, if any, of those photos were taken with the cheapest UV filter I could find attached to my lens versus those shots that used no filter at all. All photos would be taken with the same lens, same camera etc. of course. Just to weed out any riff-raff, lets make it a little wager, say... $100 on the outcome.

Any takers?
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Re: Put Your Money Where Your Filter Is... Or Isn't??

Horoscope Fish said:
Based on the "cheap filters degrade image quality" argument, and purely as a hypothetical question right now, I'm curious...

If were to post say, 25 photographs in this thread, who here would be willing to try their hand at identifying which, if any, of those photos were taken with the cheapest UV filter I could find attached to my lens versus those shots that used no filter at all. All photos would be taken with the same lens, same camera etc. of course. Just to weed out any riff-raff, lets make it a little wager, say... $100 on the outcome.

Any takers?
Click to expand...

NO and NO again not risking it.;)

mike
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Re: Put Your Money Where Your Filter Is... Or Isn't??

Horoscope Fish said:
Based on the "cheap filters degrade image quality" argument, and purely as a hypothetical question right now, I'm curious...

If were to post say, 25 photographs in this thread, who here would be willing to try their hand at identifying which, if any, of those photos were taken with the cheapest UV filter I could find attached to my lens versus those shots that used no filter at all. All photos would be taken with the same lens, same camera etc. of course. Just to weed out any riff-raff, lets make it a little wager, say... $100 on the outcome.

Any takers?
Click to expand...

There is no need for this. This is a photography forum and not a place for gambling or betting.

With that said, the B&W filters are my trusted filters.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
Where I see a difference is when I am shooting stars or macro side-by-side one shot next to the other. Filter on then filter off. However, I know in my photo what I am looking for. I could not do it in someone else's because I don't know what they were trying to achieve.
 
S

STM

Senior Member
Keep in mind that any filter adds two glass surfaces to your lens. That means 2 more surfaces from which light can reflect and possibly cause ghosting. I use Hoya multicoated UV(0) on all of my lenses primarily to protect the front element from dirt, sand (I do live at the beach after all!) and other things. I would rather have to replace a $25 filter than send my lens to Nikon to get the front element replaced.

Additionally, cheaper filters may not be of as high a quality of glass, nor may the two surfaces be perfectly parallel, which could cause distortion. If you are going to plunk down hard earned money to buy an expensive lens, you might as well spend a few extra bucks to get high quality filters for it. You would not put retreads or bargain basement tires on your brand new Mustang would you?
 
Mycenius

Mycenius

Senior Member
FWIW I use the Japanese made Marumi Filters on all my lenses - the DHG Lens Protect UV ones specifically for digital cameras as they have smaller external ring 'bands' that are also finished in a matt black (smaller to minimise the reflective surface areas and matt black to reduce risk of reflection), plus CPL and such for when I need polarizing...

I've also used both Hama and Hoya filters in the past quite successfully...

FWIW I'm not convinced either way whether "good" filters degrade image quality or not - so at present have continued to err on the side of caution and keep neutral filters present primarily to protect the surface of the lens' front element (and protect the lens front edge from damage due to clumsiness when the hood is off - like having the edge knocked against a stone wall, etc)...

I have taken images with and without a UV Haze filter on the lens on bright days and clearly seen an improved clarity with the filter on in some cases (especially hot hazy days), and on non-bright days or inside never seen any obvious difference from the filter being present or not. From which I've concluded there is no obvious detriment to having the filter permanently in place (I only remove it to swap on a CPL if needed, etc)...

Just my 2c...

​:D
 
S

Steve B

Senior Member
I use B+W UV filters on all of my lenses (except for some that wont accept filters). Usually they are either the F-Pro line or the XS-Pro line. I have had at least one front element saved by having a filter on. I figure if I need to I can remove them easier than not having one and wishing I did.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Not going to say whether of not I use a filter BUT if you put anything on your lens it needs to be the best it can be. Someone earlier talked about old windows having ripples and bubbles. That is probably extreme but to a lens that is probably appropriate. Could you tell the difference in photos posted on this forum? Probably not because this is web and the images are sized down. Could you tell in a high quality print? I would think you probably might. It would all depend on how goo d or bad the filter was.

If you do a lot of hiking or shooting on the beach. If you are clumsy and tend to run into things then please do get a filter to put on the lens. If you are careful and really take care of your camera and lenses then you might not need to but the decision is yours.
 
M

MPSanSouci

Senior Member
Fish .. I've read a lot of your posts and you seem to be very knowledgable.

Earlier in this post you mentioned .. use a Tiffen .. Back in my 35mm film days, I had always used Hoya filters. Is there a major difference between brands .. And does Tiffen surpass Hoya?

I have only purchased a UV filter so far, but I like to play a lot and will probably be buying more filters in the future. I would appreciate your input in this.

Michael
 
Top