[PatBranch]

Is there a big difference between

(lowest level hoya)
and

(highest level hoya)
???


I really want a polarizer, but I don't want to spend over $150 on one. I have pro 1 UV filters on two lenses which are good.

Is there going to be much of a difference between the two. What is the difference between them when comparing photos? Is the cheapest not going to work very well ($30) and the best ($150) going to be that much better?

Maxyedor said that cheaper ones have fewer coatings (or none). What if I got the cheap one and put it under or on top of my pro1 UV filter? Would that be okay -or is that just too much stuff in front of the lens?

Has anyone used the $30 hoya? Or, maybe I could find a cheaper/but still good one by another brand.

 

[Kornphlake]

I'm not sure but usually the difference between cheap filters and expensive ones is the coatings and number of coatings. The coatings are designed to minimize reflections at different wavelengths, the more coatings the fewer reflections that can cause lens flare or amplify abberations in the lenses. If you use a lens hood I don't see much reason to buy expensive filters, then again if you've got a $1400 lens why would you put some crappy piece of glass in front of it, I've never owned a really nice lens so I haven't had to make that decision.

Aside from Hoya, I've also used Tiffen filters and they are ok, Ritz camera sells Quantarray filters that are made by Tiffen (I think) but cost a bit less as far as I can tell they are the same as Tiffen filters, I can't remember if they have a circular polarizer or not though.

 

[PatBranch]

Thanks. It's going on a Tamron 17-35 2.8 that came in a package with my camera. It's probably a $200 lens. I use a hood.

Would it be worth it to put my pro1 UV filter under of ontop of the polarizer? -or would that be too much stuff in front of the lens?

 

[binary visions]

The Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0?

More like $400-450

Putting an uncoated filter underneath a coated filter isn't necessarily going to work any better and will probably be worse. An uncoated piece of glass is going to have some glare, even if it's not the outer-most piece of glass. Light is still entering the lens, otherwise you'd have no exposure, and it's still going to reflect off uncoated pieces of glass.

You probably don't need a $150 top-of-the-line filter, try looking for something that's multi-coated but not quite in that price range. You might want to PM Toshi, he's got a polarizer so he might have some more insight.

 

[PatBranch]

Wow. Then I got a hell of a deal.

 

[narlus]

If you use a lens hood I don't see much reason to buy expensive filters, then again if you've got a $1400 lens why would you put some crappy piece of glass in front of it, I've never owned a really nice lens so I haven't had to make that decision.

UV filters are a raging debate (like taper greasing or not) but most people who do use them like to use them as protection for their lens front element. a lens hood will protect the lens well enough, but in really tough conditions like blowing sand etc it may not provide adequate protection.

the circular polarizer, though, is an essential piece of kit for outdoor shooting in certain situations, and can't be replaced or mimicked by post-processing. it reduces glare off water and tree leaves, and really creates a stunning sky color if the conditions are right (make a gun shape w/ yr hand, point the index finger at the sun, and yr thumb will be in the direction of maximum effectiveness for the CP).

this was taken w/ a b+w CP (which cost a lot...it's a 77mm filter) on the lens:

if you are using bigger diameter/wide angle lenses, it's preferable to get the slim ones to reduce vignetting.

i've also got a couple of Hoya filters (UV and CP, 67mm) which work well. this is the one i use for my 70-200 f/4 lens:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=3508153/

 

[maxyedor]

Pat, I just had a thought check out the Calumet brand filters, their UV and ND filters are the best I've used, they are made by Hoya (I think) but are a little cheaper, and they make a mid level, multi coated, polarizer. http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/HF58210.html


As for UV on top of Polarizer, I wouldn't one filter won't affect image quality, but as a general rule, when you start stacking them you can get funky aberations in the image.

 

[maxyedor]

If you use a lens hood I don't see much reason to buy expensive filters, then again if you've got a $1400 lens why would you put some crappy piece of glass in front of it, I've never owned a really nice lens so I haven't had to make that decision.

I use both hoods and filters on my zooms and short primes, always. I do a lot of sports and PJ work and my gear gets lots of abuse, so the hoods will protect the filters, which in turn protect the lens. A typical $1400 lens has 12-17 peices of glass in it so a $100 filter is actually more expensive than any other peice of glass in the lens. Wide angle hoods don't do much to protect your lens anyway. Also when shooting off-road racing, rally, mt. biking ect you get lots of rocks and dirt kicked up at your lenses, the hood does nothing for you in those cases.

On a side note, the high end lenses "L"s and such, are sharper than your chip can pick-up, so even a little image distortion from the filter still gives you a lens that's sharper than the chip. On a cheaper lens with a cheaper filter you will notice the image quality degradation more.

 

[PatBranch]

Max, that one in 77mm is $110. I have seen pro1's for $120 on ebay.
Camera stuff is so expensive.

 

[Kornphlake]

Hey guys, I never said don't use a filter, I said if you use a lens hood you don't need expensive filters, the cheap ones will be good enough with the hood minimizing the reflections on the lens. I agree, a filter in front of the lens is cheap insurance. Unless you've got an expensive lens I don't see any need for a $120 filter, even if it's a polarizing filter.

 

[PatBranch]

So, would I be fine with a $30 one? Or should I go for like a $60 one that is coated?

 

[narlus]

Hey guys, I never said don't use a filter, I said if you use a lens hood you don't need expensive filters, the cheap ones will be good enough with the hood minimizing the reflections on the lens. I agree, a filter in front of the lens is cheap insurance. Unless you've got an expensive lens I don't see any need for a $120 filter, even if it's a polarizing filter.

my point is that you can get optical effects w/ a CP that you can't get otherwise.

 

[Kornphlake]

If it were me, I'd get the $30 filter. If you've got the money get one that's coated, there's nothing more frustrating than having a picture that would have been great but your equipment botched it up.

I took this using a cheap 70-300 zoom lens, for most pictures I didn't notice the chromatic abberation, this one however was obliterated by the purple fringing. It could have been a nice photo if it weren't for my cheap lens. A lens that cost $200 more would have taken a perfect picture, I don't think that I would be able to notice the difference between a $400 lens and a $1400 lens though. Maybe in 1 out of 1000 pictures you'd see a difference, maybe not. I don't make money with my pictures (and it's a good thing I don't) so I can't justify having the best, but it's worth it to have equipment that is at least adequate.

 

[Kornphlake]

my point is that you can get optical effects w/ a CP that you can't get otherwise.

I don't think I'm expressing myself very well.

I am suggesting that if you use a lens hood the quality of the coating on the filter will be less important, regardless of rather the filter is a polarizing filter, a star cross filter, a neutral density filter or a UV skylight. There are plenty of reasons to use a filter, there are lots of situations where you just can't get the picture you want without a polarizer, and a lens hood won't change anything.

A $120 filter may not get you any more benefit than using a $60 filter and screwing on your lens hood. A coated filter will always be better than an uncoated filter, but I don't think there is much reason to go nuts and buy a filter that has 42 layers of coating unless you have a professional level lens, even then I'm a little skeptical.

 

[PatBranch]

Thanks for the help! That's the info I was looking for.