[psoo]

I recently discovered that a zoom lens that I got for next to nothing was amazingly sharp, so I decided to use it more frequently. To protect the lens from dirt and knocks I purchased a skylight filter. Being cheap, I searched the Internet and bough a new Vivitar 55mm one for under $4 including shipping. It is well-built and doesn't seem to be plastic. There were other filters available for up to about $25, as I remember. I can't see how a cheap skylight filter can be significantly inferior to the most expensive ones. Can anybody enlighten me?

[lithedreamer]

Check out this link: bythom.com/filters.htm

I'm not sure how accurate his views are, but your post got me to start researching.

Edit: Link fixed.

[qblade]

Actually, the link is:

Filters by Thom Hogan

(with the l on the end you just get an error msg...)

[lithedreamer]

Actually, the link is:

Filters by Thom Hogan

(with the l on the end you just get an error msg...)

Thanks! Safari wasn't letting me copy and paste.

[SpecialK]

Can anybody enlighten me?

Use a hood always, and a lens cap when not actively shooting. I avoid plain filters, particularly cheap ones.

[shooz]

I don't use filters on digital, unless I have a use for them, such as a neutral density filter or a polarizer.

Even then I limit them, as without a hood they can induce glare, or sometimes flair, making that little removable window in some Pentax lenses handy indeed when using a polarizer.

If you need to use one on a lens without a hood, try and stand in the shade when taking your shot.

[alfa75ts]

I don't like skylight or UV filters on digital but that's just how I feel.

In high contrast situations, lights at night or shooting the moon, it's easy to see the reflections of light bouncing off the sensor and back off the inside of a filter.

This actually happens in all shots but can be hard to see.

If you want to scare yourself look at the moon offset to one side in live view with and without a filter.

If you must use a filter at least get one coated both sides to reduce reflections from the inside.

[MarkJerling]

I recently discovered that a zoom lens that I got for next to nothing was amazingly sharp, so I decided to use it more frequently. To protect the lens from dirt and knocks I purchased a skylight filter. Being cheap, I searched the Internet and bough a new Vivitar 55mm one for under $4 including shipping. It is well-built and doesn't seem to be plastic. There were other filters available for up to about $25, as I remember. I can't see how a cheap skylight filter can be significantly inferior to the most expensive ones. Can anybody enlighten me?

I don't think there would be a major difference between cheap and expensive ones, other than possibly a better coating. I think, most of it actually comes down to different retailers having very different profit margins!
I'm cheap too, but I always buy a skylight filter for any new or secondhand lens I buy.

On more than one occasion now, a cheap skylight filter has saved my lens' front element from damage. It's simply a cheap insurance policy to protect the front element of your lens. I never use a lens without one, unless I'm doing reverse mount macro shots.

Plus, of course, the lens stays much cleaner!

[abmj]

Would you think that a very cheap lens is optically the same as a high-end lens by a reputable company? The differences are in better materials, better quality control, better grinding/polishing and better coatings. A $4.00 filter won't be much better than putting a piece of Saran Wrap over the front element. Ok, I exaggerate a little.

Bottom line, it pays to pay for quality work. If you are going to put something in front of your precision, high-quality lens, you should probably match the quality of the lens as close as you can. Otherwise, you just reduce the quality of image the lens transmits.

[MarkJerling]

Would you think that a very cheap lens is optically the same as a high-end lens by a reputable company? The differences are in better materials, better quality control, better grinding/polishing and better coatings. A $4.00 filter won't be much better than putting a piece of Saran Wrap over the front element. Ok, I exaggerate a little.

Bottom line, it pays to pay for quality work. If you are going to put something in front of your precision, high-quality lens, you should probably match the quality of the lens as close as you can. Otherwise, you just reduce the quality of image the lens transmits.

I agree completely that quality items often cost more than inferior products. However, I've spent $12, $20 and I've spent $50 and I cannot see the difference. These days, I buy many camera related things directly from Hong Kong or Japan and often the item that arrives, at a fraction of the price, is identical in every respect to the same thing costing 4x the price here.

Often, thought, the expensive one is in a fancy box, the cheap one simply in a cheap plastic case. I suspect much of the pricing is retailer mark-up and fancy packaging.

One thing to remember though is that most cheaper filters are flat, and some lenses have a slightly curved front element. One needs to make sure the filter does not touch the front element when screwed on. Another problem I've found with the cheaper ones is that the glass may not be well secured in the rings, so sometimes some adjustment is needed.

[psoo]

Would you think that a very cheap lens is optically the same as a high-end lens by a reputable company? The differences are in better materials, better quality control, better grinding/polishing and better coatings. A $4.00 filter won't be much better than putting a piece of Saran Wrap over the front element. Ok, I exaggerate a little.

Bottom line, it pays to pay for quality work. If you are going to put something in front of your precision, high-quality lens, you should probably match the quality of the lens as close as you can. Otherwise, you just reduce the quality of image the lens transmits.

I, respectfully, disagree. There are major differences between the construction, design, and materials, for a cheap and expensive lens. That's why you can expect the expensive lens to perform much better. In the case of even a cheap UV filter I would expect the glass to be very flat and true, so that distortion would be negligible. Even if it didn't have super-dooper coatings I would still expect that it would perform very well and be more than adequate for even advanced photographers.

One respondent said, above, that some filters are cheap because the sellers operate at a lower profit margin. But $4 including postage, is giving it away. What profit can they make? What's their motive?

---------- Post added 11-07-14 at 06:45 AM ----------

I don't like skylight or UV filters on digital but that's just how I feel.

In high contrast situations, lights at night or shooting the moon, it's easy to see the reflections of light bouncing off the sensor and back off the inside of a filter.

This actually happens in all shots but can be hard to see.

If you want to scare yourself look at the moon offset to one side in live view with and without a filter.

If you must use a filter at least get one coated both sides to reduce reflections from the inside.

Thanks Alpha. That's one valid reason to not use a UV filter, especially if the cheap filter is more prone to this problem. But is it?

---------- Post added 11-07-14 at 06:47 AM ----------

Use a hood always, and a lens cap when not actively shooting. I avoid plain filters, particularly cheap ones.

Hi SpecialK. What is your problem with cheap plain filters? Is it a generic problem?

[savoche]

I can see a few potential problems with filters.

One is the reflex issue Alpha mentions. Good coating can reduce this problem. Another is the veiling you can get when light hits the filter at an oblique angle or with a strong light source in the frame - I have seen this at times. Some of that can be remedied with a hood, though.

Also, each uncoated air-to-glass surface is said to eat about 4 % of the light passing through, which means you can lose 8 % of your light with an uncoated filter. Good coatings will reduce this loss significantly.

[psoo]

I agree completely that quality items often cost more than inferior products. However, I've spent $12, $20 and I've spent $50 and I cannot see the difference. These days, I buy many camera related things directly from Hong Kong or Japan and often the item that arrives, at a fraction of the price, is identical in every respect to the same thing costing 4x the price here.

Often, thought, the expensive one is in a fancy box, the cheap one simply in a cheap plastic case. I suspect much of the pricing is retailer mark-up and fancy packaging.

One thing to remember though is that most cheaper filters are flat, and some lenses have a slightly curved front element. One needs to make sure the filter does not touch the front element when screwed on. Another problem I've found with the cheaper ones is that the glass may not be well secured in the rings, so sometimes some adjustment is needed.

I agree with you that many cheap items come from Hong Kong and are probably made in China. I once bought some AA battery holders on eBay for holding spare batteries for my Pentax Kx. They were dirt cheap. After a month they were still not delivered and I was prepared to forget about them, assuming they got lost in the mail. Then they finally arrived from HK in a cheap envelope, but they were perfectly useable.

[SpecialK]

I would expect the glass to be very flat and true, so that distortion would be negligible. Even if it didn't have super-dooper coatings I would still expect that it would perform very well and be more than adequate for even advanced photographers.
....

Hi SpecialK. What is your problem with cheap plain filters? Is it a generic problem?

I get protection with a hood and cap. I therefore don't put cheap extra things in front to the lens - or expensive ones either. I believe your assumptions above are not accurate.

The "filter" question has been answered yes and no in many previous threads.

[GibbyTheMole]

I use cheap (as in $5 cheap) UV filters as protection on most of my lenses & I haven't seen any degradation of IQ, even when A / B testing for it. There are situations when I remove the filter, such as night photography, concert photography with stage lights, etc... situations where glare might be caused by a strong point-light source.

Personally, I'd try it. If you don't like it, don't use it.