[grhazelton]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Amazon lists Zeikos filters in large sizes for really low prices. Too low? Anyone have experience with these? I don't want to put junk in front of my glass, but I'd be happy to save money.

[elliott]

I got some thrown in free with a lens, they are junk, the CPL didn't even work as a polarizer.

[grhazelton]

I got some thrown in free with a lens, they are junk, the CPL didn't even work as a polarizer.

Thanks for the heads-up. True good and cheap to be true.

[snake]

Zeikos are junk. I tried them. They try to market them as if they are a major brand, but they're not. Prices are creeping up, too, since people don't know any better. Just go for a decent brand. Hoya is one you can't go wrong with. It's worth it just to buy it once and be done with it, than buying the same product over and over because you're trying to save a couple bucks.

[snake]

Should give you an idea, anyway.

Not really. Only a with/without and a comparison to a higher quality filter should do.

[elliott]

I'd like to see those Zeikos used a situation that could cause flare, the one I had was terrible, flared worse than some of my old single coated lenses.

[Rondec]

I don't like Zeikos filters, but then again, I don't like many filters. Most will degrade your image in the right situation. I just see lots of flare with cheap filters, whether you are talking Zeikos or Tiffen.

[snake]

Here's the thing about that "higher quality filter" thing. If an image with the filter present is virtually identical to one without, there's really not much "higher quality" you can demonstrate. Clear is clear. A better test would be strictly with and without the filter to judge detrimental effect on IQ.

I did a filter/no filter test awhile back, but the images were very large (they have to be to accurately compare) and so I deleted them from the links. Here's the test page. No one was able to tell which with and which were without the filter.

If I have time, later today, I will repeat the test and post the comparison of with & without for your (and everyone else's) perusal. I'll use one of the sharpest lenses I have, fix the focus with the camera on a tripod, and shoot at the same manual setting for both. Then I'll post both, straight out of the camera, at 100%.

Although, the shots I posted above clearly demonstrate the sharpness & lack of other nasty things while using the filter, I'm willing to do it again. Stay tuned.

I might add that if the filters were in fact the total garbage others say they are, those photos I posted wouldn't be as sharp as they are.

|Their sharpness, contrast, and color character might satisfy you, but it's still far from the reality that many, including myself, have experienced, where it's SIGNIFICANTLY better to not use a filter at all if you have Zeikos on hand. The gap between filterless and filtered in terms of degradation is quite wide when compared to quality filters.

Some of us want to actually get the shot down mostly in the composition phase, rather than using a heck of a lot more PP or jpeg engine hocus pocus to do it.

Edit: I'm looking at the pics and while I'm not a pixel peeper, there appears to be some weirdness there, like a milkiness to a couple of the pics, lack of microcontrast, and weird color casts. They might be fine for you, again, but these PP examples are far from convincing.

[snake]

The color casts are from post processing. Those were shots I thought demonstrated sharpness well. If you don't like them, reject them. Simple solution.

Unless someone else wants me to, I'm not going to bother with an A/B test at this point, because it's pretty obvious I will be wasting my time.

Well, it would be questionable, at the very least, since it looks like you'd be more interested in supporting your claims rather than being willing to prove yourself wrong.

Again, some people want to squeeze out as much quality as possible to work with from the composition phase, not start adjusting for low quality filters in the post processing to go along with their other tasks. Your examples prove that there is some weirdness going on with these filters, or with something else in your compositional phase, such as the milkiness.

Sorry, but the examples have not proven anything except the fact that you can sharpen pics like no tomorrow in PP to make up for a milky, low quality filter's effects. Even then, there is milkiness and negative traits from oversharpening in PP.

[snake]

snake: Like I said before, you don't have to accept what I posted. That's fine. Not arguing. But since you've decided to get personal and basically call me a liar and insult me over something so trivial as a $3 filter, you have the distinction of being the first person in the 3 years and nearly 1200 posts I've spent on the forum to be added to my ignore list. Ah well.... Guess I had to break in that feature eventually.

I have done no such thing. You're taking disagreement way too personal and this overreaction is proof that a side by side test by you won't be conducted fairly, but would rather be designed to support your claims.

[kace]

I have done no such thing. You're taking disagreement way too personal and this overreaction is proof that a side by side test by you won't be conducted fairly, but would rather be designed to support your claims.

Actually, you have been more than a little obnoxious towards him.

He's at least offered to produce images to support his claims, what have you offered except a fact devoid opinion?

[snake]

Actually, you have been more than a little obnoxious towards him.

He's at least offered to produce images to support his claims, what have you offered except a fact devoid opinion?

Actually, I offered what I saw in the pictures, which he accepted (ie: milkiness, microcontrast, color cast issues). The pics are heavily oversharpened in some cases, so he unfortunately can't prove much about the quality of the filters he's asserting.

I stand by what I said- most of us want the composition phase to be the most important to minimize PP and restrict it to creative elements, rather than corrective elements. Most of us don't want to spend additional PP time correcting for a filter instead of just taking the low quality filter off.

I use good filters and for critical work, I take them off.

[GibbyTheMole]

I've deleted all of my previously submitted posts on this thread. From here on out, I'm probably just gonna ask questions as needed & read stuff that I find interesting unless I'm specifically asked something directly. Seriously, and I say this with no malice whatsoever.. forget I said anything.

Toodles & happy new year.
Bobbo.

[rbefly]

Getting back to the OP's question, my belief is that money spent on a quality filter is never wasted. The only filters I normally use are CPL's (don't leave home without them!) and ND- both graduated and full.
The best value/quality combination I've found are Marumi filters. My 49mm CPL is as necessary as my DSLR body and lenses (check my sig, I have lots of "M"s and "A"s!!) and I've purchased Marumi CPL's in a couple other sizes also, like 52mm and 67mm. Each is a one-time purchase, taken care of as carefully as a quality lens.
Marumi CPL's cost roughly $1.00 per mm, so you're looking at a fairly high price if you have a range of filter sizes. Again, a one-time investment in clear, sharp, high-contrast photos.
http://stores.ebay.com/OEC-Camera-Accessories/Filters-/_i.html?_fsub=595012&...=p4634.c0.m322
I have no connection with OEC or Marumi, but wouldn't mind a T-Shirt!
Ron

[grhazelton]

Phew!

I never realized that what I thought was a simple request for information would turn into the nearest thing to a flame war I've seen outside of the defunct Politics and Religion forum. Actually there were remarkably few flame wars on the P & R forum, considering that the topics discussed were a bit more substantive than a cheap filter.