Common Lens Filters? and there uses?

[prodigy2k7]

There is a difference between cheap filters and expensive ones. There really is. Google it or search the forums.

 

[gryffinwings]

There is a difference between cheap filters and expensive ones. There really is. Google it or search the forums.

I already have done some research and get a lot of mixed opinions. It's kind of difficult to sift through all the crap to find the real information, which I've not found too much on if there is a difference, so far it's goes on a persons word, haven't seen to much comparison, except one that was on just cheaper ones.

 

[Infidel]

What more do you want to know? You get what you pay for, there is a difference, small difference, big difference, not enough info, too much info, whatever. Do you want someone to tell you what to buy? I hereby approve of, and thus validate, your inclination to buy the Tiffen.

 

[JG_Coleman]

I hereby approve of, and thus validate, your inclination to buy the Tiffen.

I second that motion. The council has spoken!

 

[KmH]

Having a good, fundamental understanding of technology helps to determine which info is good and which info isn't.

 

[KirkS]

I'm just a hobbyist, and can't justify hundreds for a filter, but I like the effects of certain filters. I wish I had Lee, Singh-Ray, or B+W, but if I did, I'd have to get used to sleeping in the garage.

As for brand, I have found the HOYA HMC line to be a good compromise of quality and affordability. I won't do Tiffen, as they aren't multi-coated (same with the Polaroid and other brands). I grabbed a HOYA CPL on ebay for $10 (used), and a new HOYA HMC ND4 (2 stops) for $11. You have to be patient for the screaming deals, and then jump when they show up.

Another (affordable) brand I've heard very good things about is Marumi. I'm looking to get an ND8 (4 stops) or greater (would love a VariND, but...), and the Marumi's are looking good to me.

There is a general consensus that a UV filter or clear filter is a waste of money. I would agree. UV/Skylight filters were essential in film photography, but with digital, your sensor is designed to 'filter' the UV rays. From a 'protection' standpoint, they can do more harm then nothing in front of the lens. Lenses are coated, and very difficult to scratch/break, and most scratches (or even gouges) won't be visible of the image. If something was to hit your front element, it probably wouldn't have any affect on t. However, if something was to hit the filter hard enough to break it (and it doesn't take much to break a filter), the chances of the glass into glass scratching or harming the lens is really high. Aside from that, the IQ deteriorates pretty quick with a UV (or any filter).

As most of what your typical filters do can be reproduced in PP, you really only need the filters that can't be reproduced; CPL's & ND's, are (IMO) the main ones, with things like star-effect filters, multi-image, and split filters being in the second group (again, IMO).

As mentioned earlier, CPL's will reduce/eliminate glare and unwanted reflections, which you can't do in PP. ND's allow for longer exposure times & wider apertures, without affecting other aspects of the image. They allow you to show motion when you want to. You can also 'stack' filters, where you put more than one on the lens. Keep in mind that each filter you put in front of the image will decrease IQ more and more, and can cause unwanted vignetting.

Think about the types of pictures you want to take, and figure out what kind of filter(s) can help you achieve your desired affect. For me, it ND's and CPL's, and not much else.

 

[KirkS]

Oh, and as far as how bad does a UV affect IQ, I bought a used 75-300 with a B+W UV, and went and took some pics of the moon (Super Moon 5/5), and I couldn't understand why I couldn't get a sharp, detailed moon surface. About 2 weeks after (too late), I remembered about the UV, took it off, and took some shots that night. Tremendous difference, you could now make out the crater walls, not just soft dots.

 

[gryffinwings]

I'm just a hobbyist, and can't justify hundreds for a filter, but I like the effects of certain filters. I wish I had Lee, Singh-Ray, or B+W, but if I did, I'd have to get used to sleeping in the garage.As for brand, I have found the HOYA HMC line to be a good compromise of quality and affordability. I won't do Tiffen, as they aren't multi-coated (same with the Polaroid and other brands). I grabbed a HOYA CPL on ebay for $10 (used), and a new HOYA HMC ND4 (2 stops) for $11. You have to be patient for the screaming deals, and then jump when they show up.Another (affordable) brand I've heard very good things about is Marumi. I'm looking to get an ND8 (4 stops) or greater (would love a VariND, but...), and the Marumi's are looking good to me.There is a general consensus that a UV filter or clear filter is a waste of money. I would agree. UV/Skylight filters were essential in film photography, but with digital, your sensor is designed to 'filter' the UV rays. From a 'protection' standpoint, they can do more harm then nothing in front of the lens. Lenses are coated, and very difficult to scratch/break, and most scratches (or even gouges) won't be visible of the image. If something was to hit your front element, it probably wouldn't have any affect on t. However, if something was to hit the filter hard enough to break it (and it doesn't take much to break a filter), the chances of the glass into glass scratching or harming the lens is really high. Aside from that, the IQ deteriorates pretty quick with a UV (or any filter).As most of what your typical filters do can be reproduced in PP, you really only need the filters that can't be reproduced; CPL's & ND's, are (IMO) the main ones, with things like star-effect filters, multi-image, and split filters being in the second group (again, IMO). As mentioned earlier, CPL's will reduce/eliminate glare and unwanted reflections, which you can't do in PP. ND's allow for longer exposure times & wider apertures, without affecting other aspects of the image. They allow you to show motion when you want to. You can also 'stack' filters, where you put more than one on the lens. Keep in mind that each filter you put in front of the image will decrease IQ more and more, and can cause unwanted vignetting.Think about the types of pictures you want to take, and figure out what kind of filter(s) can help you achieve your desired affect. For me, it ND's and CPL's, and not much else.

I've heard some really bad reviews about the Hoya HMC CPL filters and how they fall apart very easily.

 

[Solarflare]

There is a general consensus that a UV filter or clear filter is a waste of money. I would agree. UV/Skylight filters were essential in film photography, but with digital, your sensor is designed to 'filter' the UV rays. From a 'protection' standpoint, they can do more harm then nothing in front of the lens. Lenses are coated, and very difficult to scratch/break, and most scratches (or even gouges) won't be visible of the image. If something was to hit your front element, it probably wouldn't have any affect on t. However, if something was to hit the filter hard enough to break it (and it doesn't take much to break a filter), the chances of the glass into glass scratching or harming the lens is really high. Aside from that, the IQ deteriorates pretty quick with a UV (or any filter).

Err ... but why would I allow anything to hit my lens hard in the first place ? I carry my camera in a backpack with plenty of stuff in it, including packs of paper handkerchiefs, and I keep my lens hood on all the time, too, so hard impact is unlikely.

Also, my lens filter is multicoated, too (Hoya Pro-1). And hard to break. And hard to scratch.

So all the filter is for is a protection against scratches while I carry my camera around in my backpack. I simply want to gain these extra seconds I otherwise have to spend on removing the plastic protection.

Also - quality loss ? Give me a break. This is a realtively thin layer of glass.

 

[gryffinwings]

There is a general consensus that a UV filter or clear filter is a waste of money. I would agree. UV/Skylight filters were essential in film photography, but with digital, your sensor is designed to 'filter' the UV rays. From a 'protection' standpoint, they can do more harm then nothing in front of the lens. Lenses are coated, and very difficult to scratch/break, and most scratches (or even gouges) won't be visible of the image. If something was to hit your front element, it probably wouldn't have any affect on t. However, if something was to hit the filter hard enough to break it (and it doesn't take much to break a filter), the chances of the glass into glass scratching or harming the lens is really high. Aside from that, the IQ deteriorates pretty quick with a UV (or any filter).

Err ... but why would I allow anything to hit my lens hard in the first place ? I carry my camera in a backpack with plenty of stuff in it, including packs of paper handkerchiefs, and I keep my lens hood on all the time, too, so hard impact is unlikely.Also, my lens filter is multicoated, too (Hoya Pro-1). And hard to break. And hard to scratch.So all the filter is for is a protection against scratches while I carry my camera around in my backpack. I simply want to gain these extra seconds I otherwise have to spend on removing the plastic protection.Also - quality loss ? Give me a break. This is a realtively thin layer of glass.

I have a B+W F-Pro UV filters on 2 of my lens and I haven't noticed any loss of image quality.

 

[KirkS]

Err ... but why would I allow anything to hit my lens hard in the first place ? I carry my camera in a backpack with plenty of stuff in it, including packs of paper handkerchiefs, and I keep my lens hood on all the time, too, so hard impact is unlikely.

Also, my lens filter is multicoated, too (Hoya Pro-1). And hard to break. And hard to scratch.

So all the filter is for is a protection against scratches while I carry my camera around in my backpack. I simply want to gain these extra seconds I otherwise have to spend on removing the plastic protection.

Also - quality loss ? Give me a break. This is a realtively thin layer of glass.

It's not that you are 'allowing' something to hit it, but accidents happen. I totally agree with the use of a hood for protection. Yeah, it'll still let dust and what-not on the lens, but 99% of that will blow off, and the other 1% can be wiped off with lens tissue and/or cleaning fluid.

No, the IQ loss isn't huge, and for most will not be noticeable, but every layer of glass, no matter how thin, changes the light coming through to some degree. There is plenty of reading from pros regarding this, along with data.

This is an old argument, and you either feel one way or the other, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to change. Just thought the OP should be aware of both sides of the debate, and he can make his decision just like the rest of us made ours.

 

[KirkS]

Only because I know on a forum people will want supporting evidence, this was the first hit on a search for "image quality loss with photographic filters", and there is more. You'll see the advantages have nothing to do with IQ, whereas the disadvantages do.

Advantages:

• Protects the glass on your lens from scratching
• If sand/mud is blowing the filter will stop it from sticking to the glass
• The filter can be removed and cleaned quickly and easily
• The filter often helps weatherproof the lens (on the Canon L series for example)

Disadvantages:

• Glare from the sun can spoil your images
• Adding filters can cause a vignette to appear on your photos.
• It might stop you from being able to use a lens hood

And for a fun read about filters, check this out from lensrental.com LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters

 

[KirkS]

A scientific study of the affects of filters (of different quality levels) on images - INTEGRATION INSIGHTS - Filters Factor into Optical Imaging - Vision Systems Design
And, if you just want to see 3 images; one with no filter, one with a Hoya, and one with a cheap-o, see the 4th post - Filter IQ

 

[DBA]

Will a filter have an effect on the AF? I tired a [crappy] CPL filter once and it seemed to have issues with focusing, however it could have just been me.

The protection these filters afford is generally thought to be most useful when the front element is exposed to a lot a dirt/contamination and frequently wiped clean with a less-than-perfect cleaning cloth (think dirty t-shirt).

You mean like this?

 

[simion]

The only filter no one seemed to talk about in this thread is a 10 stopper. /10 stop filter.
This basically has the same effect as an ND filter, but it is much stronger. If you can understand it this way, it let's you shoot at 10f stops less than usual. For example, if you would have been to shoot at f2, with 1/30, once you put the filter on, you would shoot at 6.3. However, this is just technical, in real life you would test your exposure multiple times, changing it everytime you shoot, and then pick the best ones. This filter is used to achieve that ultra silky water, even in daylight.

Regarding about how costs affect it, i have a 52mm ND8 that doesn't even have a brand (heh), and a 10 stopper 77mm from B+W (bought for 70 pounds ~ 110$). Now, the building quality is much, much better on the B+W. The cheap one is plastic, B+W is metallic, and feels much better in your hand. But regarding picture quality, i really can't assess, as i made a mistake buying an ND filter for my 50mm 1.8 (which i bought for low light condition, which is quite ironic).

That's pretty much it.