Filters - is there really a difference?

[edG]

During a recent visit to a local shop, I was informed by a sales rep that there is real difference between multi coated filters (CPOL, ND, etc.) and single coated.
That single coated can produce artifacts such as ghosting or other problems. What has been your experience?

[Greg_Nuspel]

Unfortunately there is a difference and they charge accordingly. The better the coating the less flare and reflections.

[F8&Bthere]

At the risk of becoming a bit of a broken record on this forum, I'll share my thoughts on this subject. What Greg says is absolutely correct. If you are going to use filters get good multicoated ones.

That said, there are some good analytical comparisons on filters at lenstip.com, and surprisingly (or maybe not) they show that there is not necessarily a perfect price/efficacy correlation. So when choosing brands, it may not always go without saying that B+W/Heliopan/Singh-Ray are your best choices. And also keep in mind it's not always purely about optical quality- construction and ease-of-cleaning are important too. I like higher end hoya filters, but in comparison multicoated B+Ws are a treat to keep clean.

Finally, if you are careful to avoid imposters, buying on-line (ebay or retailers) will probably save you a lot of money compared to the local brick'n'mortar. I'm all for supporting local business, but they seem to rape us on accessories, and don't always have the best selection.

[JAS_Photo]

I have never used a single coated filter and honestly did not know they even existed still, but that being said if you are going to put a piece of glass in front of your lens you want it to be as good as your lens, at least! This fall I purchased a high end 17-55mm 2.8 Nikon lens as my main camera lens so naturally I wanted to get a decent filter. After researching, I broke down and got the Singh Ray LB warming polarizer as my main filter for that lens. I also have the UV but leave the polarizer on most of the time now. Unfortunately, it is not a cheap filter and the size needed for that lens -77mm- makes it even worse. Is it worth it? I would say so from recent scenic and highrise shots I have taken.

[F8&Bthere]

Not trying to convolute the issue here, but this is something I've been wondering since listening to Marko's last podcast.

Filters is one of those hotly debated topics. And I know at times we photographers get overly anal and techy about our gear. Case in point...perhaps... is that although there is a huge consensus amongst filter users that high quality multicoated glass is the way to go... even some who are against filters period, for always on/protective uses, because of the idea that putting anything else in front of your precision tuned optics is just heresy. Yet you get established, published pro photographers like Darwin Wigget using the Cokin/Lee system extensively and the filters are made of plastic. I realize it's no ordinary plastic, but can you imagine the uproar if Nikon introduced a resin-based lens? Not only that, but also all the fuss about reflection and ghosting with tightly threaded filters.... if you've ever used a Cokin P holder, the resin filter is like a good half inch from your front element with open gaps top and bottom letting in all kinds of stray light.

I'm no expert. Just makes me wonder, is all.

[Marko]

Interesting post F8! I agree with you about anal photographers :p.
IMO - High quality Plastic lens filters are fine. I can't recall where I saw/read this, but I researched this (again) recently and there seems to be no noticeable difference in a print used with these filters comapered to the same shot without the filter.

At the end of the day, my EYEGLASSES have plastic lenses and i value my eyesight far more than lenses that cost 2 grand. If high quality plastic can sit in front of my eyes, it can also be used in front of my lens. :twocents:



Not trying to convolute the issue here, but this is something I've been wondering since listening to Marko's last podcast.

Filters is one of those hotly debated topics. And I know at times we photographers get overly anal and techy about our gear. Case in point...perhaps... is that although there is a huge consensus amongst filter users that high quality multicoated glass is the way to go... even some who are against filters period, for always on/protective uses, because of the idea that putting anything else in front of your precision tuned optics is just heresy. Yet you get established, published pro photographers like Darwin Wigget using the Cokin/Lee system extensively and the filters are made of plastic. I realize it's no ordinary plastic, but can you imagine the uproar if Nikon introduced a resin-based lens? Not only that, but also all the fuss about reflection and ghosting with tightly threaded filters.... if you've ever used a Cokin P holder, the resin filter is like a good half inch from your front element with open gaps top and bottom letting in all kinds of stray light.

I'm no expert. Just makes me wonder, is all.

[Wicked Dark]

I'm new to your forum, but I'll throw my 2 cents in here. Filters are not optics and shouldn't be compared as such. They are merely aids to making a specific type of exposure, not for getting the image oriented onto the sensor properly. They do not interact directly with the body mechanism and so are not as critical a component as the lens itself. Yes, there is a difference between cheap junk and decent filters, but unless you can tell two photos apart between one that uses brand a and one that uses brand b, don't get too hung up on them. Use them intelligently and they can make all the difference.

[F8&Bthere]

Yes, there is a difference between cheap junk and decent filters, but unless you can tell two photos apart between one that uses brand a and one that uses brand b, don't get too hung up on them. Use them intelligently and they can make all the difference.

Well put, and welcome to the forum!

[edG]

wow, some good responses - thank you to all for your input