Once upon a time I had a tiffen filter on the end of one of my first lenses, and have since removed it now that I know a lot more about photography and saw how awful it looked even on the LCD screen.
Now, I find myself often photographing children and dogs and am thinking a UV filter might again be a good idea, especially now that I know not all UV filters are made equal.
I don't have any L glass yet, so I don't see a reason to spend upwards of $50 on any filter for a long time. In fact, my best lens is the EF 85 f/1.8 (and soon to be accompanied by the EF 28 f/1.8 ) and will be my best lens until I can save up for a full-frame and better justify sticking some fancy glass onto my camera.
So anyway, is this filter high-quality enough that I can spend less than $50 and not notice a difference in IQ?
I've heard good things about B&W thusfar. I know that the cost of replacing the front element of these lenses is likely the same price as the filter (or less) but at this stage in my business I can't afford the time to have the lens fixed. These kids are ruthless.
my neighbor on day asked if i thought that filters made better pics or helped in any way with photography and does it make since to buy them. I walked to my car to get my camera bag and show him the kinds i used and while showing my neighbor the filter i had on the 85mm 1.8 i used to own and explaining the importance of their protection aspect i dropped it! he expressed what was between a gaggle and a groan. after i shouted aw sh*t i reached down and saw the filter had cracked and taken ALL of the head on brunt of the impact. the glass was 100 still!
that was in fact a Tiffen. but as per your post, I do see the IQ difference from a lesser cost filter and ones better made, especcially with CIR-PL's. I now use B+W on all my glass. i feel you MUST have them. the protection alone can be worth the cost ;-)