Filters - Cost vs. Performance? I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive...

was_a_guru

I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive choices. In looking at reviews for these I find that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable reviews seems to be the about the same over that range and is independent of price. So do I need to be spending a lot of $$ for filters or are the less expensive ones just as good as the expensive ones?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You want a once in a lifetime image ruined because of a cheap filter? What is it worth?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might find this useful as a relatively recent analysis. Unless looking for a UV filter specifically the effect on blue skies, haze, or sharing your lenses with film cameras, you might consider a clear filter as a better option instead. Personally, I use only B+W F-PRO or B+W XS-PRO models. You'll get people swearing about filters. You won't find anyone swearing, in a positive way, about inexpensive filters.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm not shooting for NatGeo and my livelihood does not depend on my photography, so
Hoya and Tiffen do fine for me.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

was_a_guru wrote:

I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive choices. In looking at reviews for these I find that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable reviews seems to be the about the same over that range and is independent of price. So do I need to be spending a lot of $$ for filters or are the less expensive ones just as good as the expensive ones?

Hmmmm.. cheap filters good or bad... look thru any dirty window or screen.... does the dirty glass effect what you see? A cheap filter is like a dirty window...except no cleaning will help it!

FWIW - I stopped using filters on my lenses, other than a good quality HOYA UV or B+W UV/CLEAR for shooting in nasty environments, like blowing sand. I have seen much better image quality (IQ) on my shots. And my lens hoods provide protection for the front element of the lens

When they say you get what you pay for they are not lying ;)

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

was_a_guru wrote:

I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive choices. In looking at reviews for these I find that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable reviews seems to be the about the same over that range and is independent of price. So do I need to be spending a lot of $$ for filters or are the less expensive ones just as good as the expensive ones?

The highest price doesn't guarantee the best quality, but cheap is cheap.
Why have a quality lens if you're going to put an inferior filter on it?

Joe Blow

I'm going to get everyone mad and say this is a BS myth.

Cheap or expensive doesn't matter with UV, Skylight, or other clear filters. Simply, the filter is too close to the lens to have any noticeable effect on the image. Any aberration is too outside the minimum focus to register. Your window will have to be pretty dirty for it to effect a shot.

If you want a front filter then go for it. It won't protect your camera any better than no filter. It won't keep the front element from dust. (If dust on the front element is your major concern, your concerns are misplaced. Worry about dust inside the lens.) It won't protect the lens from drops. It won't protect your lens from UV.
But, if you want a filter on your lens, it isn't going to hurt.

For a specialized filter, such as a CP, then yes, quality does count. I would add neutral density and linear polarizers in there as well. Trick filters, such as twilight and star effect filters are in their own class.
***

Filters for film cameras are a totally different game. They are very useful and serve significant purposes.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Cheap does not equal good and vice versa. Hoya are reliably good and a fraction of what you pay for supposedly "better" filters. Find and read reviews and you quickly see what I am referring to.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

CHG_CANON wrote:

You might find this useful as a relatively recent ... (show quote)

Oh I believe they'll be swearing by those really inexpensive filters.....and not in a good way once they look at their pictures 😎😎

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

You pay for a really cheap filter, you get a really cheap filter.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

was_a_guru wrote:

I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive choices. In looking at reviews for these I find that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable reviews seems to be the about the same over that range and is independent of price. So do I need to be spending a lot of $$ for filters or are the less expensive ones just as good as the expensive ones?

Generally more expensive filters are better to a certain point of diminishing returns and even more so you just start paying for the name and getting an inferior product but you feel good because it has snob appeal. I have found that the better Hoya filters rate as well or better than snob filters and save money. But they are not cheap either, you just don't pay a lot of money for blue sky.
It takes a lot of research to dig through the hype but the information is out there.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

You want a once in a lifetime image ruined because of a cheap filter? What is it worth?

This actually happened to me, or at least it was the best photo I took that year, with a cheap CPL, so I totally agree. I will buy only filters from the highest rated 3 or 4 companies and only their top of the line models. For example, Marumi, B+W, Hoya. Just my opinion but shaped by experience. Losing that photo made it well worth spending extra for high quality.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

As ridiculous as it sounds I am still using filters (mainly polarizers) from the film era. Those filters were made by Tiffen and I am satisfied with the results. I am quite sure that expensive multicoated filters are better.
I see no use today for a UV filter and I do not believe in the "protection" that it is said they offer to the optics.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm in the same corner as the previous posters. What sense does it make to put a $10 filter on a $1000 lens? My choice is B+W. Those filters are used on all of my cameras.
--Bob

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

was_a_guru wrote:

I am wanting to buy some filters (UV, CPL) for both my 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. There seems to be a range from inexpensive to very expensive choices. In looking at reviews for these I find that the ratio of favorable to unfavorable reviews seems to be the about the same over that range and is independent of price. So do I need to be spending a lot of $$ for filters or are the less expensive ones just as good as the expensive ones?

Do you use a lens hood on your lenses? THAT is what provides the best protection against damage.

The UV/clear glass ones don't really do much besides putting an extra layer of glass between the subject and camera sensor. Circular Polarizers are very handy, but you won't want one on your lens in all situations. Graduated neutral density filters can help prevent blown out highlights from a bright sky/sunrise/sunset, and those can be hand-held rather than fooling with a holder. You do need to be concerned with quality, but the most expensive is not necessarily all that much better than the more reasonably priced. Just do your research before buying - don't use price as your guide.

Some will argue that you don't need graduated ND filters because you can fix things in LR and PS. But if the pixels are completely blown out [gone to white], there is not ANY detail left to bring back in PP.