Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...

[Don Haines]

All my lenses have b&w filters and I don't see degradation. When I'm slipping lenses in and out of bags the front gets dirty with dust, fingerprints. I have no worry wiping them off with a tshirt or a cloth. They have saved my lenses from liquids before and some impacts. If you baby your gear sure but as a pro I don't have time to be worrying about my front element.

I have decent multicoated filters on all of my lenses too... I try to baby my gear, but S___ happens.... I placed an order last week to B+H and it included a 77mm UV filter to replace one with a big scratch down the middle. I have no idea how I scratched it or what I was doing when it happened... but I am a lot happier buying a new filter than sending a lens across international boundaries for a new front element.....

I also have some polarizing filters.... One is a "Henry's special" and the other is a Sigma Multicoated.... there is an immediately visible difference between the two.. If you think cheap filters are bad idea for UV and clear filters, then you are really going to hate a cheap polarizing filter.

HINT: When buying "specialty filters", such as polarizing, ND, infa-red, etc... buy them for your biggest lens size, and then get some step-up rings for the smaller lenses.

 

[Loswr]

I guess you didn't try my suggested test. I shoot indoors a lot, there are usually strong light sources (ceiling light fixtures, floor lamps, etc.) in the frame. In that situation, a cheap filter is a bad idea (I did try a cheap Tiffen once, since it came on a used lens I bought - if you'll pardon the New Englandism, wicked bad flare; no issues with my B+W MRC filters).

No offence but this wasn't about a controlled test using blah, blah and doing blah, blah. I picked up my camera with the filter on, took a shot. Took the filter off and took the same shot. Did the same thing with the other two. Just random shots that anyone of us could take. I DID take these indoors, with normal indoor lighting conditions, using my onboard flash. Nothing special...

Again, if you don't like filters, then don't use them. My test was to show that even though under very close examination you can spot a difference, but just viewing a photo normally, its a lot harder.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos!

It's as if someone handed you a $20 digicam and said it rendered purple/magenta hues as blue...and you compared it to your dSLR and concluded the cheap camera was fine...and showed pictures of a green lawn as 'proof'.

Your point was that a cheap filter is basically just as good as an expensive one, so there's no need to pay more, and you supported that point by showing a pair of images that were taken under conditions that would not reveal the major problem caused by cheap filters - flare.

Maybe you don't find the flare you get with cheap filters objectionable...but it is evident, and easily spotted even in normal viewing of a web-sized image.

Life is too short. Go out and take some photos...but be sure not to have any strong light sources in the frame!