Need advice on filters

[shagnat]

I'm curious about lens filters. I know about UV filters but that's about it.

My question is about low priced filters vs extremely expensive filter

Why can (for instance) one UV filter cost ~$150, where as different brands of the similar UV filter is ~$12??? I know the obvious, but, are the expensive filters really worth the money? I'm just a sport photographer, nothing professional or even close to professional. However, I would like to have a smallish assortment of filters for achieve acceptable (just by me) pictures.

You input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[bratkinson]

Actually, for digital photography, UV filters are more a hinderance than a 'safety', and offer nothing that the built-in UV filter in the camera doesn't already do. ANY piece of glass in front of your lens will cause some image degredation. Obviously, the cheaper filters cause more degradation, and the pricey ones, very little...but still some does occur. Probably the test/thread that 'really hit home' on cheap filters is one performed by Lens Rentals:

LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters

In general, most 'general' photography doesn't require any filter.

Probably the most useful filter, however, is a Circular Polarizer, aka CPL, used primarily to cut reflections/glare from smooth surfaces like windows and lakes. It takes some practice to frame your shot, focus, twist the filter to get the desired effect, then shoot...all without dropping the camera.

The second group of filters are neutral density (ND). They are used to darken the image reaching the sensor, thus forcing a longer exposure, for 'special effects' like 'smooth, soft water' in a waterfalls or at a shoreline, or intentionally blurred motion, and a variety of other effects. They can be stacked to 'additively' darken the image more. Graded neutral density (GND) filters are darker on the top than the bottom and are most useful for sunrise/sunset pictures where the sun itself would 'blow out' the exposure and the subjects in the foreground would be back-lit/dimly lit/under-exposed as well. Positioning the darker area of the filter above the horizon will darken the sun/sky and with the longer exposure, the subjects in the foreground would be closer to proper exposure.

Beyond CPLs and ND/GND filters, I would class all the rest of the filters as 'fun' filters...various colors, star, soft focus, etc. If you're coming from 35 mm photography and remember all the various filters to match film type and lighting, those are all done in-camera or during post processing as 'white balancing'.

No need to rush out and get 'a bunch' of filters. Start slow and build up from there. One idea is to get a filter that has the same screw-on size as your largest filter-sized lens. Then, by appropriate 'step up' rings ($8-15 apeice, generally) to adapt the larger size filter to a smaller-size lens. Saves a lot of money when you have 4 filter-sized lenses like I do. The only 'hook' with this method is the lens hood may not fit. I've resorted to put the hood on first, then screw on the filter with step-up rings (step up 'from' the lens 'to' the filter size), IF the filter will fit the opening of the hood. If not, I use my hand above the lens to act as a 'hood' when shooting.

 

[BrianV]

If a UV filter is priced at $150- it must be huge, in the 122mm diameter range. UV/IR filters are "Dialectric" and have a thin film of metal over them, they run in the $80 range for most "regular" sizes. As for others, filters can be uncoated, single coated, multi-coated: some made of glass or and some of plastic.

Whether they are required or not- just to protect a lens, or to filter out unwanted wavelengths of light- that becomes a religious debate on forums. Most sensors have built in filters that stop most IR and most UV. The exact amount and cutoff depends on the manufacturer, and most do not post their exact specifications. Most UV filters cut off light below 3900Angstroms, the UV range. Most sensors allow more UV light than that- go down to around 3500Angstroms or less. Film went far deeper into UV.

 

[SCraig]

Same reason you can buy a $50 lens or a $500 lens. Better optical quality, fewer imperfections in the glass, better coatings, etc.

Put a $20 UV filter on a camera and take a shot, then take it off and take the same shot. You will see a definite difference in the image quality, especially in sharpness. Swap the $20 UV filter for a $100 UV filter and you will see a lot less difference. Bottom line: You will pay for quality.

 

[shagnat]

Thank you guys for all your help. Seems like an inexpensive UV filter (which is what I purchased prior to making this post) is a waste of money AND image quality. We learn everyday, right?

So, I guess no UV filter any longer, but, a couple of good ND filters and polarizer filter are in my future. That along with some "fun" filters and let it go at that. At least that's what I've conclued after thoroughly reading the posts you guys gave along with the blog from Lens Rentals dot com

It's great to know I can get the advice of more knowledgeable persons than I to gain the proper conculsions in my search trying to create the best photo I can.

 

[SCraig]

The argument as to whether or not to use a UV or clear filter to protect your lens is entirely your choice. Just understand that there are LOUD arguments on both sides of the fence, and in some cases there are loud mouthed proponents who will swear that if you don't pay attention to EXACTLY what they proclaim then you are the biggest idiot that has ever been born. Ignore them. Arm yourself with knowledge, choose the path you want to take and never look back. There are as many people using filters for lens protection as there are people not using them. Both feel they are right, both are pretty much unwilling to change their minds.

I choose to use UV filters to protect my lenses because I did save one once. It's not hearsay, it's a fact and it happened to me. I also know that when I need all the resolving power my lenses can provide all I have to do is reach around, unscrew my filter, and put it in my pocket where it's no longer degrading anything. Best of both worlds. My decision, my choice.

Other than that, the only filters I use are a couple of ND filters and a graduated ND filter as well as a circular polarizer. They are sized for the largest lens I had at the time and I have step-down rings to go down to my other lenses so that I can use them on more than one lens.

 

[shagnat]

SCraig, you make a great arguement. I think I'll take along my UV filter (el cheapo $7.95ish) and take some photos with and without it. Then possibly try a more expensive $50ish UV filter and compare. That way I can make an informed decision.

Thanks very much for your input.

 

[SCraig]

Take shots under varying conditions. I think you'll find that under ideal conditions you'll see little difference whereas under marginal conditions that really need the resolving power of your lens you'll see a significant difference.

My 150-500 Sigma lens came with a Tiffen UV filter (OK, it wasn't completely free, I paid a penny for it) and I can see a big difference shooting ducks at long distances. Shooting deer at relatively short distances it isn't even noticeable. So, I know to just take it off when I need to and leave it on when I don't. Some people act like they are a permanent fixture and not something that can be taken off as desired. It's no big deal removing one and I feel better knowing it's there sometimes.

 

[shagnat]

Take shots under varying conditions. I think you'll find that under ideal conditions you'll see little difference whereas under marginal conditions that really need the resolving power of your lens you'll see a significant difference.

My 150-500 Sigma lens came with a Tiffen UV filter (OK, it wasn't completely free, I paid a penny for it) and I can see a big difference shooting ducks at long distances. Shooting deer at relatively short distances it isn't even noticeable. So, I know to just take it off when I need to and leave it on when I don't. Some people act like they are a permanent fixture and not something that can be taken off as desired. It's no big deal removing one and I feel better knowing it's there sometimes.

RCraig, those are exactly my plans. Although for me to determine what conditions are idea vs marginal may present another issue I would need to determine.