how cheap is too cheap

[sfdgs]

I recently purchased a sigma 24-70 f/2.8, but didn't purchase a u/v filter.

The filter size is 82mm and my only local camera shop just carries promaster

filters in this size. Would this be an acceptable filter or should I fork out

the bigger bucks and buy a more quality brand such as Hoya or Tiffen from

somwhere like B and H?

[alan_olander1664878205]

You will hear arguments for and against using filters for "protection", but if you're going to use one, why put cheap glass in front of your expensive lens? Get a B+W or other expensive brand. Hoya filters are good for the money, too.

[doug_axford1]

I bought 3 filters on ebay from 'treasuresale' for 24 bucks (all 3) to protect 3 new lenses worth way more than your Sigma. A filter is a filter is a filter....unless of course you believe the filter mfg. hype. I'm a long time, full time pro and I would never pay big bucks for filters ever again. Do the tests - no difference. Doug

[leicaglow]

I vote for a higher quality filter. At minimum, the Hoya Super HMC, Nikon, Canon, etc. Higher end: B&W, Heliopan, and others. I also believe that putting cheap glass on an expensive lens is a waste of your lens investment.

[danielleetaylor]

Doug - I've done the tests and cheap filters are just that: cheap. They degrade the image both in terms of resolution and contrast, and sometimes even introduce flare orbs and shapes on the image. You can tell the difference in filters just by holding them up to a light.

 

Jason - why pay for good glass then put cheap glass in front of it? Buy Hoya Super HMC (sometimes called Hoya Digital Pro 1 now) or B+W filters. Otherwise, you might as well trade your 24-70 f/2.8 for a cheap, consumer super zoom. I typically buy my filters from www.2filter.com. Note that Hoya sells different grades of filters, with the lowest grade being no better than stuff off ebay. You want their hightest grade, HMC stuff.

[alex_lofquist]

I just received a 77mm CP multicoated filter from Filterhouse.com. It is branded Kenko, but appears to be the same as Hoya. At under $100 it is significantly less expensive than the Hoya, et al. Under visual examination I can see no obvious defects. The coating, as viewed in reflection, is obviously more than singly coated. I bought this for use with my Nikkor VR 70-200 f/2.8. (Not an inexpensive purchase.) I have checked out the degree and alignment of polarization. OK here. Surfaces are flat and there is no discernable distortion or defocussing of the final images.

 

I have had filters from Kodak, Omag, Harrison & Harrison, Leica, Hoya, Tiffen, Nikon, et al and have never seen any "cookie cutter" filters. I would be willing to guess that the Promaster filters are manufactured by Hoya or Tiffen and are probably entirely acceptable.

 

Just for the heck of it see what the 82mm UV filter would cost at Filterhouse.com.

[jimstrutz]

I've seen some real junk with some cheap filters, but *most* of the lower cost versions have glass that is at least clear and straight. I don't find optics to be a problem too often. The more common problem is cheap rigs/mounts that cause binding. The better ones are sometimes made of brass or something else that does not bend easily. Heavy gage aluminum can work, but the thin lightweight versions flex too much and bind while trying to mount or unmount.

 

But if you are using this for a protection filter, make sure you get one that is multicoated. Non-coated filters will introduce flare and loss of contrast if they get light shining on them. I personally prefer a stout lens hood for protection, as they reduce flare, not add to it.

[stemked]

About 6 years ago a friend of mine showed me his photos from the Grand Canyon. He was very proud of them especially on the way he had so darkened the sky with his polarizer; I didn't really have the heart to tell him the skys over Arizona are NOT purple during the day. He proudly showed me his Canon EOS body with a wide angle Canon lens and a Promaster filter on it. Since then I haven't gotten to within 10 feet of a promaster lens.

 

Keep an eye out on ebay. You might be surprised occasionally how easy it is to get a stellar circular polarizer from Hoya or Tiffen at a much more reasonable price.

 

One other little thig though. I don't know that lens, but it is pretty wide on the 24mm end. You may 'have to' consider slim filters which are generally even more expensive to avoid vigenetting

[re_photography]

I have the convenience of having only two filter sizes among my several cameras and lenses. I do not use filters as protection unless I know that I am going to be shooting somewear that will specificaly need protection such as the beach where even the salt in the mist in the air can pose a problem. I instead use the hoods included with all of my lenses. If you are purely using an essentially clear or plain UV block filter strictly for protection of the lens and are concerned about both price and image degredation, I might boldly suggest either just using the lens hood in most cases. For any lens that did not include a hood, there is normally one available specifically for the lens or at least appropriate for the zoom range. These are generally much less expensive than a good filter. That said: I own 2 sets of the same 4 filters (one set for each thread size of 58mm and 77mm). I own Tiffen UV (0), Circular Polarizer, ND x4, and NDx8. I use these on lenses out to 16mm, so I had to go with the thin fram models which cost a little more. I don't know how the standard frame models would work out to 24mm (in the case that you are using a 1.6x faxtor digital sensor camera, this point is irrelevent), but they are generally thin enough for UV and clear filters as there is no added depth of a rotating element, such as is the case with a polarising filter. I got "coated" filters, but not the ultimate for the brand. I believe you could obtain good UV or absolutely clear filter for around $50. Are the better then a filter you can get for $35, maybe, maybe not. In cases like these, my opinion is the same as it was for buying strobes, when there are conflicting opinions and no clearcut/proven data as to to the advantages/disadvantages of each option, find the best option in your price range based on what information is availble and also the fact that whenever possible it is hardly ever advisable to purchase the cheepest item in any given category. My reasoning for this is that the cheepest available item, when there are other options readily available, is usually sold because it is the cheapest; there is no concievable advantage for the company to produce a better product at a lower price; companies are seldome generous and will seldome give you more for less if they can give you less for less (or more for more of course).

[sfcole]

UV filters are like..................lobster ravioli. Kind of pointless.

[peter_n1664876959]

A B+W MRC F-Pro UV filter is the best investment you can buy for each of your lenses. Screw the lens hood into the filter then you are always ready to swap quickly from your bag.

[craig_gillette]

I think I've seen more "problems" from the retro-reflectivity of the sensor than from filters. In the past I tended to use reasonably priced multi-coated filters most of the time, now I'm a little more likely to leave them off the hooded lenses but would consider the occasion. They need to be kept clean. But if adding grads or polarizers, they need to come off.

 

If out around blowing sand or salt water, I'll use them. If trying night exposures with intense light sources, I'll remove them. Some lenses are more prone to flare and I'd remove them from them if convenient or shooting towards the sun.