Price differences in filters

[deadtoaster2]

I am looking to get a 62mm polarizer filter and while checking out prices, etc I am noticing that they range from very cheap to pretty expensive. Is there really a big difference between the $15 dollar ones and the $115+ dollar ones?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/3result...&ci=115&sb=bs,upper(ds)&sq=asc&atl=,Size_62mm

Thanks

 

[Alpha]

Filters start getting expensive very fast once you break 60mm. It's important to remember that even with something like a polarizer, with its very specific purpose, you want to minimize the glass between lens and subject. If something has to be in between, it had better be good. With that said, when it comes to your basics like UV and colored filters, it doesn't make that much of a difference. It probably does a bit more when you start talking ND and PL's. If I had a choice, I would stick to the big makers, like Hoya and Tiffen, or anything with a major name on it like Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

most people here agree that for the most part, you get what you pay for when it comes to filters, with diminishing returns. when I bought a circular polarizer, I bought a multi coated Hoya.

 

[panocho]

the same kind of difference as between lenses, I guess. After all, it's just a matter of glass.
If you use cheaper lenses, why not filters as well; a good filter won't make a bad lens good. Now if you have spent money on a good lens, don't make it a bad one by adding one "element" of considerably worse glass

 

[fmw]

Is there really a big difference between the $15 dollar ones and the $115+ dollar ones?

Yes. $100+ dollars.

 

[RMThompson]

Also there are TWO types of polarizing filters, linear and circular.... there is a HUGE difference between the two when it comes to photography.

Linear doesn't play nice with the modern Autofocus and metering that rely on split-beam technology, which the modern TTL cameras use. The cicular filters DO however, so that's ONE reason they are more expensive.

Circular filters should only work in ONE direction whereas a linear one can be seen through both sides!

Here is an article on the web I found about it, that explains the more technical side:

Let’s assume you have a modern SLR with a beam-splitting mirror in the camera body. The purpose of a beam-splitter in a camera is 3-fold. First, a portion of the incoming light will be split to the viewfinder so you can view the scene. Second, a small portion is split to the AF system so that the camera can determine focus. Third, yet another portion of the incoming light is split to the meter system for determining exposure. This split (viewfinder, AF system, meter system) has to be constant, say 60%, 20%, 20% (although we don't really know the exact values).
A linear PL is comprised of a single layer of polarizing film between 2 layers of glass. With a simple PL, phase & angle changes cause the split ratio to vary. Sometimes 20% is split to the metering system & another time the metering system may receive 15%. In this case the metering system will be inaccurate, because it doesn’t know the % of light received. It’s possible for the discrepancy to get rather large.
The AF system faces a similar problem. Most AF system require f/5.6 or faster to operate properly. If 20% of the coming light is just enough for the AF system to work, & the AF system sometimes only receives 10% of the incoming light, then the AF system may fail because there isn’t enough light for it to operate properly.
A CPL solves this problem with an additional layer of polarizing film known as a quarter-wave plate. It transforms linearly polarized light passing though the 1st layer into circularly polarized light. Circular polarization eliminates phase & angle variations, & interacts with a beam-splitter in the same way as unpolarized light.