[Paul the Sunman]

I am confused by the plethora of filters (of one type) of each brand.

For example, if I look for Hoya circular polarising filters on a popular website in Australia, I see many different options, distinguished only by price as far as I can see. For example, for 77mm for example: UX II CPL Au$69; HD Mk II $139; HD Nano Mk II $169. To confuse matters further, when I look on B&H the Hoya models are completely different: HRT US$57; alpha $61; Moose $65; NXT $90; NXT plus $95; EVO antistatic $156; HD3 $199. Other brands also seem to have ranges of offerings.

Why so many? Are the prices really indicative of quality? Why the completely different model names in the US and Australia? Should I just guess that mid-range will be good enough?

[clackers]

I am confused by the plethora of filters (of one type) of each brand.

For example, if I look for Hoya circular polarising filters on a popular website in Australia, I see many different options, distinguished only by price as far as I can see. For example, for 77mm for example: UX II CPL Au$69; HD Mk II $139; HD Nano Mk II $169. To confuse matters further, when I look on B&H the Hoya models are completely different: HRT US$57; alpha $61; Moose $65; NXT $90; NXT plus $95; EVO antistatic $156; HD3 $199. Other brands also seem to have ranges of offerings.

Why so many? Are the prices really indicative of quality? Why the completely different model names in the US and Australia? Should I just guess that mid-range will be good enough?

I really wouldn't be putting cheap glass in front of a magnificent lens like your DFA*70-200, Paul.

The specs can be quite different, including being made in Japan.

For example:

https://hoyafilterusa.com/pages/compare-filters

[gatorguy]

Roger over at LensRental will tell you, based on his expert testing, that a polarizer is a polarizer, whether relatively cheap or expensive. He says don't waste money on the expensive because the cheap is just as effective.

Lens Rentals | Blog

[luftfluss]

Roger over at LensRental will tell you, based on his expert testing, that a polarizer is a polarizer, whether relatively cheap or expensive. He says don't waste money on the expensive because the cheap is just as effective.

Lens Rentals | Blog

Yeah, but...

There could still be reflections, ghosting, and probably will be a loss of contrast. Whether somewhat is a little or a lot, I don’t know.

[clackers]

Roger over at LensRental will tell you, based on his expert testing, that a polarizer is a polarizer, whether relatively cheap or expensive. He says don't waste money on the expensive because the cheap is just as effective.

Lens Rentals | Blog

Well, what he said was:

"For our ‘better’ filters, light transmission in the nonpolarized position was 88% to 91% for the high-transmission filters; from 55% to 68% for the other filters.

Tiffen CP 38%
Hoya HRT 53%
So primarily, the low-end filters transmit significantly less light than the more expensive ones"

So a cheap one is cutting half the light it gets before it even does polarization. What else does it do?

Cicala did not bother testing for other features we might think important, dismissing the argument as:

"A bunch of people wanted hardness tests, scratch resistance tests, light scattering tests, torque tests, and a 5-year failure rate. I want a pony to ride on my yacht. Sadly, none of the above is happening."

[gatorguy]

Well, what he said was:

"For our ‘better’ filters, light transmission in the nonpolarized position was 88% to 91% for the high-transmission filters; from 55% to 68% for the other filters.

Tiffen CP 38%
Hoya HRT 53%
So primarily, the low-end filters transmit significantly less light than the more expensive ones"

So a cheap one is cutting half the light it gets before it even does polarization. What else does it do?

Cicala did not bother testing for other features we might think important, dismissing the argument as:

"A bunch of people wanted hardness tests, scratch resistance tests, light scattering tests, torque tests, and a 5-year failure rate. I want a pony to ride on my yacht. Sadly, none of the above is happening."

For my own part I use a Breakthrough, a Tiffen, and a couple of Marumi's, so I did buy into the "more expensive must be better", marketing spiel or not.

That said I received an Amazon Basics sub-$20 CP on Saturday that I hope to test this weekend against a Marumi. Why buy that? I was missing a size for one of my H&Y Revorings I wanted to use in a couple of days, and I wasn't sure the Marumi I ordered would arrive from the UK in time. Well today it arrived, but I'll still give that cheap Amazon one a go.

[tibbitts]

A Vivitar-branded polarizer was the one filter I've owned that clearly degraded image quality, and that was with a 70-300 Tamron LD Di, not exactly a much-loved lens here on PF. Sharpness was seriously impacted. Other characteristics, like resistance (or not) to flare, are harder to measure.

In general I've found there's a very significant difference in how easy the new coatings are to clean compared to older coatings, and I'd weigh that considerably in selecting a filter.

[pentaxus]

Many years ago when I had appropriate test equipment, I did some polarizer tests. Expensive polarizers reduced sharpness less and were more neutral in color. Nikon, Pentax and B+W were best of the ones I tested. Canon filters were made by Tiffen and were not as good. There was a brand called rokinon that was the worst.

[ProfessorBuzz]

Finding the personal sweet spot of price vs performance is hard with filters, as you just can't tell.
I've settled on Hoya for most filters, and Marumi for specialty ones (ND100,000) if I can get them. Certain Hoya and Kenko Tokinas camera from the same factory. The made-in-Japan filters were often better.

Here's some stuff I've run into over the years:


Stuff I Disliked:
- Plastic not glass; this one was a real surprise. Not so much when country of origin shall not be named.

- Poor AR coatings - eg MgF2 instead of a multi-coating;
- coatings don't block UV so it destroys the polarizing layer;

- Coated on only one side(!) - outside, not camera side;
- Not optically flat - you can't tell this visually, you need to set up an interference measurement system - focus/sharpness will be a problem
- Sandwiched filter materials to it's air-glass-filter material-glass so optically terrible.

- Thick rings so useless on certain wide-angle lenses or with certain hoods;

- cheap aluminum with poor threads that jam
- poorly painted aluminum, not anodized - paint comes off with alcohol-based lens cleaners.


Likes from various filters:
- Hoya anti-static coatings - everything just comes off so easily
- knurled edge frame - easier to turn and remove
- multi-coated glass, all surfaces

- anodized aluminum - it's harder, the threads last longer
- reusable/recloseable cases
- blackened edges - some glass has the edges blackened, this eliminates weird reflections; flat black finish around the glass on the holder.
- removable threaded retainer ring - so you can take the glass out of the frame and clean thoroughly. I had an oceanside trip, and everything was covered in salt-spray and deposits when condensation happened.


Good luck figuring out the Price vs Performance.

The truly crappy Sirui filters went back to the store; The cheap Athabascas were better than expected and nice and thin - good for disposal after destruction;
The Cokins vary;

The upper-end Hoyas, Kenkos, and Marumis were almost always excellent.

Heliopan very good; B&W (Schneider) excellent but pricy;
Sigma has some good large filters (95-105mm) but they have thick rings which I don't like. Very water resistant/repellent.


I wish I could figure out: Quality vs price to make vs dealer costs vs dealer retail - I know we get soaked on some filters and less expensive ones are as good/nearly as good.

[Wheatfield]

I am confused by the plethora of filters (of one type) of each brand.

For example, if I look for Hoya circular polarising filters on a popular website in Australia, I see many different options, distinguished only by price as far as I can see. For example, for 77mm for example: UX II CPL Au$69; HD Mk II $139; HD Nano Mk II $169. To confuse matters further, when I look on B&H the Hoya models are completely different: HRT US$57; alpha $61; Moose $65; NXT $90; NXT plus $95; EVO antistatic $156; HD3 $199. Other brands also seem to have ranges of offerings.

Why so many? Are the prices really indicative of quality? Why the completely different model names in the US and Australia? Should I just guess that mid-range will be good enough?

Prices are very often an indicator of quality.
Is the filter made of cheap float glass or is it cut from optical blanks and then ground to be plane parallel?
Do the coatings give a colour cast?
Do the coatings inhibit reflections sufficiently?
In the case of polarizing filters, does the polarizing screen give a strong effect at full polarization or a weak one?
Are the rings rolled aluminium that will jam on your camera or are they brass with cut threads that won't?
All of these things will add to the price.

When I bought ny DFA*50/1.4, I went on a quest for good quality filters to put on it. I had just bought one of the best 50mm lenses made, and I wasn't about to trash it's quality with filters that weren't as optically refined as it.
I did quite a bit of research and ended up looking at filters from Carl Zeiss (specifically T*) and also from Breakthrough Photography (specifically X4). They seemed to come out on top of any of the reviews I read.
And yes, they are stupid expensive, but the optical system is only as good as it's weakest link, so putting a filter of dubious quality onto a high quality lens is a great way to waste lots of money on good lenses.
If you are using mid range lenses, probably a mid range filter will be fine, but if you are using top quality glass, don't kill it with a bad filter.

[Wheatfield]

I wish I could figure out: Quality vs price to make vs dealer costs vs dealer retail - I know we get soaked on some filters and less expensive ones are as good/nearly as good.

As with everything, the law of diminishing returns applies. Nearly as good will always cost less than you can't get better than this, sometimes it's a whole lot less.

[ProfessorBuzz]

...the optical system is only as good as it's weakest link, so putting a filter of dubious quality onto a high quality lens is a great way to waste lots of money on good lenses.
If you are using mid range lenses, probably a mid range filter will be fine, but if you are using top quality glass, don't kill it with a bad filter.

Well said!

Sometimes you just have to try the mid-range filters; If the lens is borderline (eg not perfectly sharp) and you add more mid-range glass, it may get so bad its intolerable.

[Wheatfield]

Well said!

Sometimes you just have to try the mid-range filters; If the lens is borderline (eg not perfectly sharp) and you add more mid-range glass, it may get so bad its intolerable.

To add to that, unless the optical system is designed to need a filter to reach optimum quality, any filter is going to degrade the image quality. A good filter will do it to a lesser extent, and hopefully so slightly as to not ne noticable.
A bad filter, not so much.

When I bought my A*600/5.6 the vendor stuck a Tamron UV filter on it. I decided that because I had spent real money for the lens I would break one of my rules and leave the filter on.
The only problem was that it was impossible to get a sharp picture.
I took the filter off and suddenly I had a sharp lens.
I don't think the Tamron was an especially bad filter, but it didn't play nice with that lens.
OTOH, it has a filter drawer that takes smaller screw on filters, and the lens seems to not mind filters in that position.

[stevebrot]

I own polarizer, IR, B&W contrast, and ND filters from Hoya, Haida, Tiffen, and B+W. I am happy with what I have from those makers, though in a few cases, what I have was the only thing I could find for a particular size and type.

Beware of amazingly inexpensive goods. I learned my lesson with Zomei IR filters.


Steve

[gatorguy]

To add to that, unless the optical system is designed to need a filter to reach optimum quality, any filter is going to degrade the image quality. A good filter will do it to a lesser extent, and hopefully so slightly as to not ne noticable.
A bad filter, not so much.

When I bought my A*600/5.6 the vendor stuck a Tamron UV filter on it. I decided that because I had spent real money for the lens I would break one of my rules and leave the filter on.
The only problem was that it was impossible to get a sharp picture.
I took the filter off and suddenly I had a sharp lens.
I don't think the Tamron was an especially bad filter, but it didn't play nice with that lens.
OTOH, it has a filter drawer that takes smaller screw on filters, and the lens seems to not mind filters in that position.

I have my Sigma 170-500 with me today, doing a few comparison shots with my DFA 150-450. In the back of my mind I kinda remember there being a clear UV filter on the front of the Sigma when I first bought it. You prompted me to look and sure enough, it's still there. A Tiffen 86C UV Protector.

Removing it after some shots this morning made a noticeable change for the better, both in sharpness and contrast. I never use protective filters FWIW, and this only reinforced my belief they can be detrimental to the lens performance.