Filters price=quality?

[WolfSpring]

Okay just a simple question, why are some UV filters 40 bucks and some are 10? I know I need them, i bought the 10 dollar ones, is there any need for buying a more expensive one? do they attract less dust/dirt? are they easier to clean? Do you get what you pay for? Or is my cheap sunpak 9.95 filter good to go?

 

[Big Mike]

Some might have better coatings on the glass. Better coatings might mean less flare and maybe a better resilience.

Less expensive ones might have less pure glass/coatings...which might give an unwanted color to your images.

Less expensive ones filters might have lower quality metal and less precise threads.

Just some ideas, I don't know for sure.

 

[WolfSpring]

As usual mike you give light to darkness, so basically you get what you pay for, but not necisarrily junk. thank you

 

[Sideburns]

no....usually IS junk...lol.
I got a 10 dollar or so optex filter (for more than 10 dollars)...
the first shots I took I noticed right away that lens flare was much easier to get...as well as glare/ghosting of lights...

Unless you spend a good chunk on filters, they're usually crap. I took the filter off, and I'm waiting until I can afford better ones before I even bother.

Use lens hoods on any expensive lenses for protection...

 

[kundalini]

For UV, I think as long as you get glass, rather than plastic, you'll be okay. Ritz was running a special buy-2-and-get-one-free on filters. So I went ahead and got Quantaray Digital UV's for my lenses. The "digital" part is primarily a thinner rim. Get yourself a hood.

With CPL's, IMO that's a different matter. I'd rather spend the extra for quality.

 

[skieur]

I use on camera filters but I also use software filters which in some cases provide more control since the photographer can selectively apply a software filter to one part of the photo.

skieur

 

[WolfSpring]

For now I'm talking specifically UV

 

[smcaskil]

Ritz was running a special buy-2-and-get-one-free on filters. So I went ahead and got Quantaray Digital UV's for my lenses.

I got the same deal. I bought two UV's, one for each lens and a Polarizer that I will have to install when I need it. But not a bad deal as far as I was concerned to get the UV filters and add that extra measure of protection.

 

[kundalini]

For now I'm talking specifically UV

Without a hood for your lens, get a decent one. If a camera shop near you is running a deal, then by all means. I don't know if Ritz on-line has the deal going on, but somebody may be.

.... and a Polarizer that I will have to install when I need it.

Like when you're outside during the day? Sunglasses for your lens. If you've got yours on your face, put the CPL on your lens.

 

[YoungRebel]

I bought a Canon UV-Haze Filter....

look what might happened with it:
Didn't see it in the beginning because it was so bright, but as soon as you go in for some post-procedure and add contrast etc you could totally see it....
(to make it clearer, I over-saturated it a little..)

Original

Here you can clearly see the spot...

So, makes me a little mad because that was what I hoped NOT to get out of it!

 

[Sideburns]

I use on camera filters but I also use software filters which in some cases provide more control since the photographer can selectively apply a software filter to one part of the photo.

skieur

I think they were referring more towards protection from UV filters.

 

[Garbz]

Cheapies let in a lot of glare and I find myself often removing the one cheap filter I have on my lens. The Hoya HMCs are far better and worth the extra money. The Hoya Super HMCs are possibly a bit better because they have better coating I'll let you know my 77mm one arrives for my new lens shortly. Now the Hoya DMC or Pro1 D filters are not. They are a) expensive and b) sold exclusively on marketing that a digital camera needs a different more expensive filter. They do not. You won't notice any difference between the "thinner glass" then you would with a normal filter. If anything it's likely to offer less protection and break more easily.

 

[kundalini]

...You won't notice any difference between the "thinner glass" then you would with a normal filter. If anything it's likely to offer less protection and break more easily.

Garbz, would you make the same declaration for a superwide angle lens? My opinion is that with the SW's, the thickness of the rim of said filter could play an obtrusive part in the image. That the wider the angle of view, the more likely filter rim thickness will intrude on your image.

 

[Garbz]

Well yes vignetting could be a problem with any lens. I am talking about the glass quality here. Actually I didn't know you could get lower profile normal filters. I've so far only seen low profile CPLs which are normally double the standard (reads every day cheap) filter size.

 

[Bevel Heaven]

i use quantaray 'professional filter series' UV on all my lens, and also have the [same] circular polarizer. I don;t skimp on filters, have seen wierdness using el cheap-o filters.. I like the comment above about 'sunglasses for your lens'