Cheap filters

deepfriedl · May 24, 2016

I know you get what you pay for, but I'm still new to decent photography gear and it seems silly to spend more on an ND filter than the lens. Are the cheap ones ok? What is the trade-off or flaws commonly found in cheap ND filters compared to more expensive ones?

I'm also interested in replies to the same question except for polarizers.

medic2230 · May 24, 2016

You can get a color cast in the cheaper ND one's

Solarflare · May 25, 2016

Well, how good is the lens, actually ?

For example some 50mm f1.8 are unbelievably cheap and I wouldnt have an issue mounting a filter thats more expensive to such a lens.

I also own a Nikon AI 300mm f4.5 that cost me less than 200€ when I bought it used. Optically this lens is completely brilliant. Again I wouldnt use anything less than the best filters on that one.

But otherwise if its some sort of not coated plastic lens then well the filter would of course make the whole thing even worse, but not by that much.

soufiej · May 25, 2016

What's your reason for wanting an ND filter?

If you want it for protection in case you drop your camera, then the cost doesn't matter. Though a lens hood would work better and actually be more useful on a digital camera.

Otherwise, you can do most anything the ND filter would achieve by using your post production editor. Also, you can undo most of the negative effects of a less expensive ND filter by using your editor.

Since de-hazing is not an obvious problem with DSLR's, I'd put my money into the software rather than the filter.

You do get what you pay for with "cheap" anything. As they say, "Do you know how to make something cheap?"

astroNikon · May 25, 2016

Image can lose IQ/details. ie, makes it kinda fuzzy especially the really cheap plastic filters. glare/ghostling

as you stated "I know you get what you pay for"
though there are exceptions but not at the $10 level.

You don't mention a budget nor what level ND filters or CPLs etc that you are looking for,

Dao · May 25, 2016

soufiej said:
What's your reason for wanting an ND filter?

If you want it for protection in case you drop your camera, then the cost doesn't matter. Though a lens hood would work better and actually be more useful on a digital camera.

Otherwise, you can do most anything the ND filter would achieve by using your post production editor. Also, you can undo most of the negative effects of a less expensive ND filter by using your editor.

Since de-hazing is not an obvious problem with DSLR's, I'd put my money into the software rather than the filter.

You do get what you pay for with "cheap" anything. As they say, "Do you know how to make something cheap?"

I think you maybe mistaken the ND filter with the UV filter

Dave442 · May 25, 2016

I usually use a filter when I have water hitting the lens. I have had some cases where it took a number of cleanings and a lot of pressure to clean off the minerals left behind from an evaporated water drop. But in general I've seen less need for a filter these days.

I do have a B+W filter and a cheap no-name filter that when put side by side you can easily make reflections off the cheap filter, but not the B+W. The B+W is also heavier and threads in smooth while the other squeaks when threaded to the lens.

deepfriedl · May 25, 2016

My interest in an ND filter is interest at long shutter speeds for daytime shots and the ability to decrease depth of field beyond what my aperture and ISO settings would permit, even with software corrections for overexposure. Well, I guess these are both cases where I want to deal with overexposure outside the realm of what could be corrected.

One use case would be: A local photographer posts landscape and city-scape shots on Facebook that are dramatically better and more interesting than what I can produce from the same vantage points, and I'm trying to learn from his photos. One technique he uses is very long shutter speeds to blend clouds and water. Water is easy enough for me to achieve, but clouds are another story.

ronlane · May 25, 2016

I would tend to agree with solarflare. I have no problems putting a $200 filter on a 50mm f/1.8 lens that costs about $125.

It really depends on what your "cheap" is when deciding what filters to use. I use the Cokin system and have a Promaster CPL and I find both of them to be good quality.

table1349 · May 25, 2016

Keep in mind, if you choose a system wisely that cost will be spread over virtually every lens you own. I use the Lee system. Square/rectangular filters that are useable on everything but my 300 & 400 f2.8.

bratkinson · May 25, 2016

One of the more expensive photography lessons I learned regarding filters is that as one acquires more lenses, almost every new lens has a filter size different than the filters I already own. It didn't take long to discover that having a circular polarizer (CPL) for 5 of the filter sizes from 58mm to 82mm to match my lenses was not practical. Just the bulk of carrying a 'set' of CPLs, another set of ND4s, etc, in my bag borders on ridiculous.

So, I've opted to use 'step down' rings to fit a single 77mm filter to my lenses with smaller filter sizes. Unfortunately, doing so often makes use of the 'stock' lens hood impossible. I'm still working on a 'generic' solution other than using my left hand as a hood. And for my f2.8 wide angle zoom that uses an 82mm filter? A step up ring, and I crop off the vignetted area as needed.

As far as using a cheap filter goes, if your goal is to continue creating less than the best images you can, then buy the lower end filters. Doing so will result in lesson #2 - cheap equipment must be replaced with quality equipment to improve image quality.

And the 'ultimate' anti-cheap-filter test is here: Good Times with Bad Filters

spiralout462 · May 25, 2016

It's a joy to use quality stuff! Not matter what it is! Get the best your budget allows, or wait until the budget is bigger. That's the only answer for me. Buying cheap costs more in the long run.

Dao · May 26, 2016

This company did a test on CPL filter in 2015 and 2008. You maybe able to find some information regarding how good some filters are and what are the main differences between them. In general, you will see B+W filters are usually at the top. And some not so expensive brands (but not low cost) such as Marumi and Hoya are worth take a look.

Polarizing filters test 2015 - Introduction - LensTip.com
Polarizing filters test - Introduction - LensTip.com

BananaRepublic · May 26, 2016

deepfriedl said:
I know you get what you pay for, but I'm still new to decent photography gear and it seems silly to spend more on an ND filter than the lens. Are the cheap ones ok? What is the trade-off or flaws commonly found in cheap ND filters compared to more expensive ones?

I'm also interested in replies to the same question except for polarizers.

Bear Grylls recommends socks to filter dirty water in an emergency situation.

astroNikon · May 26, 2016

deepfriedl said:
My interest in an ND filter is interest at long shutter speeds for daytime shots and the ability to decrease depth of field beyond what my aperture and ISO settings would permit, even with software corrections for overexposure. Well, I guess these are both cases where I want to deal with overexposure outside the realm of what could be corrected.

One use case would be: A local photographer posts landscape and city-scape shots on Facebook that are dramatically better and more interesting than what I can produce from the same vantage points, and I'm trying to learn from his photos. One technique he uses is very long shutter speeds to blend clouds and water. Water is easy enough for me to achieve, but clouds are another story.

Can you post a link to that?
I'm sure we could tell you exactly how it was done PLUS the types of Post a processing that was done. Post Processong ( aka PP) usually is the major difference in many photos with the same vantage point excluding equipment technique and skill.