Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Angry Using "cheap" filters ... then you wasted your money on that nice lens. Here's why!

    Well ... if you do not know about the effects of these CHEAP optics, please understand that I do not mean to insult anyone with this posting, so grow a thick one and prepare yourself for ... information.

    "Cheap" filters are notorious in their degradation of image quality on DSLRs and you can argue until the cows come home or until you are blue in the face, I am not backing down on this. Film lenses have been quite a bit more tolerant of poor filters. In fact, if you had a manual focus SLR ... your own eye could easily compensate for a lot the optical distortion these "low-cost" filters present and hide them. Unfortunately, the AF systems in a DSLR are for more critical of focus through the lens. The distorted plane of the "cheap" filter will cause the autofocus to actually malfunction, focusing incorrectly on the subject, to the tune of being "off" by several centimeters.

    So the question always comes up: "I have a kit lens ... and I notice no obvious degradation using a cheaper filter on it." This is like the worst observation and makes the argument that much harder to justify, but here's where we get to the ugly truth to all of it.

    Yes, this observation between the kit with and without the "alleged cheap" filter could be quite true ... and it would make my argument and personal findings look, well, untrue and contrived. Problem is ... they are not. It is because of the sloppy and poor quality of the "kit lens" construction that it can tolerate the addition of the poor performing filter on it w/o noticeable effect. You just cannot tell the difference, because the light is already so corrupted ... there "effectively" is no difference.

    The bottom line to all this discussion is that if you finally decide to improve your "kit lens" to a better grade optic, say a 17-50mm f/2.8, a 28-75mm f/2.8 or even a 70-200mm f/2.8 ... it is with these improved lenses that you will realize this insidious flaw and it will begin to show its true colors and poor optical quality. Now, admittedly, you will have to buy a new CP-filter/UV-filter for these lenses, because they are of a much larger filter-diameter than the 18-70. But, for argument sake, let's just say when you take the filter off the "kit lens" and happily place it on your new BETTER optic (of the same filter-size), thinking you just saved a buck on a filter ... you just committed the biggest faux pas we all can face.

    Please, bear with me on this. If you actually did do this ... you have just converted your BETTER and definitely more expensive lens to something no better than the "kit lens" you replaced and, perhaps, made it something worse! No kidding. My advice (seriously): Dump that crappy filter or give it away with that crappy "kit lens", when you replace it. I am pretty sure that you can probably bet that if you paid less than $70 for your CP-filter, it is a poor quality tool. Chances are: if the lens you just bought cost more than $400, you're just ruining your work and destroying the capability of the new optic. Just smile, buy the better filter and move on.

    Personally speaking, I am committed to this expense (although I do resent having to do it) and it is something I have done for my 49mm, 52mm, 55mm, 58mm, 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, 82mm, & 86mm filtered optics. I should add that I feel if I am going to make use of better glass ... it deserves the best reasonable filter I can put on it. Heck, my work deserves no less, because I am going to a lot of trouble to make it look good. I am simply not going to let some stupid filter ruin it on me, because "I cheaped out." Believe me, for any filter diameter larger than 77mm, we are ALL spending over $100, easy. Consider that it is a built-in cost of using better glass. (Pleasse know, that there is no money in this for me for this suggestion to your photography. I'm only interested in getting the "bang for my buck" from the lenses I use (Excuse my analogy, but it is hard to have respect for a man wearing a $1000 suit ... and a $3 tie to set it off.). Ruining a lens' performance, that you paid perhaps a $1000 for, by slapping a cheap-filter on the front of it ... c'mon. Don't do it! ("Ooooooh, Don ... it is sooooo tempting! I saw a $30 CP-filter, just the other day.")

    Here is a quick 77mm-filter solution, THAT DOES WORK across the board. Just simply buy the following:

    1) a good, high-end 77mm CP-filter (Hoya, B+W, Heliopan)
    2) a 77mm lens cap (to protect your filter),
    3) a 77mm screw-on rubber lens hood (to provide some lens flair protection)
    4) a Step-down filter-ring set 77/72/67/62/58/55/52/49mm (<- this is the REAL money saver and optical preserver)



    This is a SONY AF 50mm f/1.4 (55mm filter-ring) with two incremental step-down rings and the 77mm CP-filter


    This is a TAMRON AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (62mm filter-ring) with one incremental step-down ring and the 77mm CP-filter

    Please understand many photographers have gone through this drill (it takes some experience, because we all hate spending the money ... but, you just cannot avoid it when you move to a better grade lens ... you just mitigate it as best you can) but, this 77mm-filter solution works and will until you get your collection of CPs for all your various lenses.

    Please note that when you fit this 77mm-filter onto your various filter diameter lenses, using the step down rings, the original lens shield and lens cap will not be usable with the filter attached, that's why you buy the extra 77mm lens cap and 77mm screw-on lens hood.

    Okay ... have at it. I hope this helps everyone to understand the problem of crappy filters, some solutions and I wish you luck.

    This ... could get you started.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...izer_HMC_.html
    Hoya | 77mm Screw-In Rubber Zoom Lens Hood for 35mm to | H77RH
    Bower | 77mm PRO SNAP-ON LENS CAP | CS77 | B&H Photo Video
    77mm-52mm 77-52 Step Down Filter Ring Stepping Adapter - eBay (item 380152139786 end time Nov-22-09 00:49:57 PST)
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-10-2009 at 06:37 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    lol says the man who mounts a 3xTC to his top end minolta 200mm prime.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204

    Don, that's a crappy filter set. It's not even multi coated and a warming filter is a waste of money.

    These are good filters.


    With the exception of the hoya 55mm UV (purple line) on top and the promaster 67mm MC which came with my Tamron 17-50mm (it's alright, supposedly a Hoya HMC, but I don't believe it).
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    So the question always comes up: "I have a kit lens ... and I notice no obvious degradation using a cheaper filter on it." ... Yes, this observation between the kit with and without the "alleged cheap" filter could be quite true ... and it would make my argument and personal findings look, well, untrue and contrived. Problem is ... they are not. It is because of the sloppy and poor quality of the "kit lens" construction that it can tolerate the addition of the poor performing filter on it w/o noticeable effect. You just cannot tell the difference, because the light is already so corrupted ... there "effectively" is no difference.
    More simply stated, if you add crap to crap it's still crap.
    Darin Wessel
    α 900
    Zooms: Tamron SP AF70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro; Sigma 28-90mm D macro, Konica-Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6
    Primes: Minolta 28mm f2.8; Sony 50mm f1.4
    Minolta RC-1000 remote commander

    Film:
    Calumet Cambo CC400 4x5 View Camera
    YashikaMat 6x6 TLR (other accessories)
    Minolta Maxxum 7000 w/ Minolta 35-80mm f/4-5.6 & Minolta 2800 flash
    Minolta Maxxum 5000i & Vivitar 728 AFM flash
    What's next???

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    And here iv'e been using coffee filters..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I think you mean "SEPIA" filters, Steve
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    85

    Question Tiffen?

    In my limited experience with them, I've not detected a discernable difference from a comparable Hoya filter, which I primarily have, but I thought I'd stimulate the discussion of where those with more experience draw this line between brands.
    A350, A200
    Tamron 70-200 SP AF DI-LD 77mm, Tamron 70-300 58mm, Minolta AF 50, Minolta AF 100 55mm, Sigma 20-70 52mm, Tamron 200-400 77mm, Tamron 28-300 XR DI-LD 62mm, Tamron 28-80 58mm, Minolta AF 70-210 55mm, Tamron 1.4 teleconverter, Sony 75-300 55mm, Sony 18-70 55mm, Sigma EF 530 flash, Canon S3.
    Go Beavs!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I use a Tiffen 86mm CP on the TAMRON SP 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD lens ... and I am not all that impressed with it. Oh, it is better than any other $100 CP I have used on it, but still not quite what is needed on that lens.

    I usually shoot without it, using the deep lens hood that came with the lens.

    Name:  A850+200-500mm-adj.jpg
Views: 950
Size:  84.0 KB

    Of course, a B+W CP of the same diameter is easily around $250-300 and that's a serious chunk of change. If situations require I use the 200-500 more than i currently do, I will make the investment.

    Overall, I would say you are safe with the higher-end Tiffens ... as they do make a number of different grade filters.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-11-2009 at 10:35 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12
    I agree that if you buy something good you shouldn't skimp on the accessories. I sell TV's for a living (Sony ) and there's nothing worse than someone buying the best TV with best Bluray player then wiring it up with cheap shoddy cables (on top of that high end cables have high end commission )

    I buy a UV/Skylight filter for every lens/camera I have purely as a protective measure and your post has certainly inspired me to pay a bit more for the filters on the new lens I'm after. The one thing I don't agree on though is the first part. I don't have experience with this but the logic seems flawed. Crap minus crap vs crap + crap surely can't result in no difference.

    Let's just, for example, say that you have a bad lens that blocks 20% of light. You then put on a bad filter that also blocks 20% of the light. Adding the crap filter to the crap lens is increasing the amount of crap that you get so surely cannot be unnoticable compared to just the bad lens on its own?
    Last edited by Biomech; 11-22-2009 at 06:25 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomech View Post
    Let's just, for example, say that you have a bad lens that blocks 20% of light. You then put on a bad filter that also blocks 20% of the light. Adding the crap filter to the crap lens is increasing the amount of crap that you get so surely cannot be unnoticable compared to just the bad lens on its own?
    It was more in regards to focus capability and not light loss. There is so much distortion in a "kit" lens that using a slightly distorted UV filter does not really affect its performance in any noticeable way.

    If the crappy filter were the same sized filter ring, take that same filter, place it on a high-end lens (70-300 f4.5-5.6 G SSM or 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM) ... and the normally sharp focus of that lens with be impaired in ways that cannot be compensated for.

    Look, no one is making this up. This is an optical reality and you just have to realize, before you spend money on crappy gear, you can get ahead of it all by committing to higher end filters, if you use them. They will be with you no matter what manufacturer's line of lenses you use.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •