| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2008 09:17:55 AM · #1 |
I'm looking to get a circular polarising filter. On the high street they are very expensive but on ebay there are loads of not-well-known "buy it nows" from the fareast at around 5-10% of the cost. Has anyone had any experience of cheap filters, are there noticeable quality issues or have you been happy with any such purchases? I'd be really interested to know
Thanks
Spencer
|
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:27:06 AM · #2 |
| I bought the exact kind of filters you're talking about and think they work just fine, but then again I have nothing to compare to since these are the only one's I've owned. Most people will tell you that you get what you pay for, so I'm sure there is a noticible difference seen by some, but if the money is tight then the cheap ones are better than nothing at least for the protection they provide to your lens imo. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:36:25 AM · #3 |
| I have a cheap one (Quantaray, the Wolf camera store brand) that I bought for about $30. Seems to do fine, but I don't have a yardstick for comparison with something better. If I had an L lens, I'd probably want to get something better for it. My my current purposes, it works. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:40:33 AM · #4 |
| I've got cheap filters... I bought them while I was broke... NEVER again... After buying a B&W and even a Hoya filter, I haven't touched the cheap ones... But having said that, when I was on the budget, I bought them! I would be happy to ship my old CPL filter over to you if you'd like it... |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:46:08 AM · #5 |
I have both cheap and expensive ones - for different lenses.
I got the cheap ones at my pre-DPC time. :)
There is a huge difference in how well the light is polarized by these filters.
If you read up more on this topic you will find that most photogs suggest this:
- buy a real good one for the lens with the largest filter size
- get step-down rings/adapters for the lenses with a smaller size.
You know what? THey are right about that approach.
Even if this means you have to save more money for a little more time. It's well worth the wait.
Message edited by author 2008-12-05 09:46:58. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:49:56 AM · #6 |
What about cheap UV/Haze? I saw some real cheap ones on the eBay? Is a UV/Haze filter going to be about the same, cheap or not?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2008 09:56:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by goinskiing:
What about cheap UV/Haze? I saw some real cheap ones on the eBay? Is a UV/Haze filter going to be about the same, cheap or not? |
UV/Haze filters in general only provide extra glass for the light to go through - and this provides more chances for distortion, unwanted reflections, and deteriorated image quality.
Many photogs do not recommend these filters - but it is a continued debate. A good lens hood and a lens cap generally do a much better job of protecting the lens than a filter like these - aand the UV/Haze does essentially nothing for improving image quality |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 10:01:47 AM · #8 |
ROFL - are you aware of what you're asking? :)
This question is on the same level as CANON vs NIKON.
You'll never come to a conclusion and you immediately get into philosophical discussions.
Here a quick run-down:
- any glass put in front of lens-glass has an impact on quality
- cheap glass - big impact, expensive glass - less impact.
- So you have to come to a conlcusion about what you want to use the UV filter for.
"cheap" glas to protect your expensive (lens) glas - is one of the reasons.
THat's what I'm doing. I have a cheap UV filter on every lens I own.
BUT: if I want shot some 'important' pictures , or if I expect some weird reflections (against the light), I remove the filter.
If I'm shooting in a wet (waterfall,...) or dirty environment I always leave the filter on.
I'm using the filter to protect my lenses, not for the effect of reducing UV light.
Now said that there is an other group of photogs stating that the new lenses are protected enough and you don't need additional glass in front of your lens.
I don't know who's right or wrong. Bottom line is: you have to decide for yourself.
Sorry...
|
|
|
|
12/05/2008 10:01:54 AM · #9 |
You get what you pay for when it comes to photograpic equipment, especially filters.
Not all filters are built the same, therefore, the quality will not be par.
Cheap is cheap.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2008 11:45:31 AM · #10 |
All I have to say on the notion of the so-called "protective" filters.
Filter Flare Factor |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 11:47:33 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All I have to say on the notion of the so-called "protective" filters.
Filter Flare Factor |
They are quite protective... I've had them save the front element of my 12-24...
Having said that... I also take them off while shooting... Reading this gives me one more reason to, I guess...
Message edited by author 2008-12-05 11:48:13. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 12:31:46 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by shalrath:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All I have to say on the notion of the so-called "protective" filters.
Filter Flare Factor |
They are quite protective... I've had them save the front element of my 12-24...
|
I know the contention that somehow the filter "cushions" an impact, but the physics of such scenarios doesn't support your case. The lenscap and hood are orders of magnitude more efective in that regard.
Message edited by author 2008-12-05 12:32:35. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 04:36:05 PM · #13 |
My theory on filters is very simple.
Lens are made of glass correct? I pay good money for good glass, why should I kill my results by throwing a cheap piece of glass in front of good glass. Why not just buy cheap glass to begin with? We all know the answer to that one.......with filters as with a lens, you get what you pay for. What dollar amount can you live with for the results that you get?
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/05/2008 06:20:00 PM · #14 |
i got a circular polarizer made by a company called Bower. I got it from a rip-off shop in NYC (another story).
It worked really well actually, it was just built like crap and fell apart after 2 months. It was easier to 'read' than my Kenko one that was $110- i mean that it was easier to tell where the polarisation was happening on it and the results are practically the same.
ETA: i now use the Hoya pro 1 super DMC UV whatevers on my lenses now (the 3mm thin ones) and they do a good job of cutting down flare, haze and increasing contrast in the distance (especially near the sea). Well worth what I paid for them on ebay a year ago and theyve been around the world and help up (literally).
Message edited by author 2008-12-05 18:21:48. |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 06:41:08 PM · #15 |
I went the Lee way for my ND grads, not the cheapest but you do get 2 for 1 as the ND grads are so large they double as full grads.
None of my longer lenses have UV filters (see  MattO's comment, the lens hood does that ;)
And, the best thing about using the LEE filter system is I can use them with my B+W 105mm Kasemann Circular Polariser (£££'s) |
|
|
|
12/05/2008 07:50:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MattO:
My theory on filters is very simple.... |
On the other hand, I have what you might call "cheap glass" (non-interchangable), so why spend 3-4 times as much for a top-line filter? I got both a Tiffen Circular Polarizer and Grad ND for a little under $100 from B&H a year or so ago ... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:25:55 AM EDT.
