Are expensive UV filters really any different to the cheapies?

[Mickster]

One day, I was out on some rough terrain with one of my expensive lenses and realized that I hadn't brought a protective filter with me and the nearest place to buy such a thing was Bestbuy(US). Well all they had were these cheap ($10-$20) "Sunpak" models so I decided to grab a UV and a circular polarizer as cheap insurance.

On comparing these to my Hoya's, I can't detect the slightest difference! Is this just more name-brand BS or am I missing something?

Mickster

[flake]

Go find a chot with loads of detail in it, then shoot one shot with the cheap filter and a second with the more expensive one. You might like to try a few different apertures, then look at the two shots at 'actual pixels' if the resolution is the same then in most cases there's probably not a lot of difference.

Check the shutter speeds as they should be the same

then try a second shot with the sun in or close to the shot and check out the flare, this is where a more expensive filter should score with its better coatings.

Also make sure that both filters are not excessively thick, on a standard zoom they shouldn't vignette but on a wide angle they might do.

You might also want to do a white / grey card test just to check that there is an even exposure across the image.

Some third party products are better than others but I have to say that Sunpak were a respected third party manufacturer of flash guns before the days of ETTL, and you may have picked up a good quality unit at a reduced cost. I'm not even sure that Sunpak are still in business any more, but I have a 5000PZ flash I use as a slave, it's not got the build of the Canon or the Metz, but it's always worked for me.

I think in this case you might just have struck it a little lucky.

[chris-p]

There was a similar thread on the DCM site, although it was about whether or not UV filters degrade image quality.

For the record what I said then was...

I can't see any bloomin' difference. I shot the same scene using exactly the same conditions and simply screwed a cheap (Camlink) UV filter onto the end of the lens for the second shot. Even at the pixel level I couldn't see a difference.

However.... I have had refraction problems with UV filters. I've had night shots where lights are reflected between the front element of the lens and the UV filter. Whether a more expensive UV filter would have better coatings and whether it would have stopped it from happening I don't know!

[Forseti]

Just for arguments sake take a comparison between Hoya's standard 72mm circular polarising filter and their Pro-1 Digital circularising filter (£74 versus £103 approx). The difference in quality between the two filters can be defined by two elements - overall build and the glass coatings. The more expensive Pro-1 filter has a superior build quality which features a smoother and more cushioned action as you rotate the filter's front element. The frame of the Pro-1 filter is also a little thinner which helps reduce the chance of vignetting when using it on wide-angle lenses, and it also boasts a set of ridged teeth around the rim for easier use. While build quality is always a valid consideration, more important in terms of image quality is the difference between the coatings on the glass. The regular circular polarising option has a standard coating similar to most optical filters, whereas the pricier Pro-1 equivalent has coatings to not only combat lens flare when shooting directly into the light but also to produce a clearer image with improved levels of contrast.

The bulk of this text was taken from Digital Photo magazine - October edition. Amazing what I find in my Dentist's magazine rack. And no, I don't use any of these two filters - I use B+W which costs the same as these two filters put together. Better quality than cheaper options? In terms of coating it's difficult to say, but in terms of build quality an unqualified yes. For one thing, they don't keep getting stuck on as was the habit with my previous ownership of Hoya's.

[KeithT]

OK, are cheap boots reading glasses any different from prescription reading glasses? Are cheap spectacle frames any different to expensive spectacle frames? Well, the cheapo stuff usually falls apart after a while and doesn't normally live up to the fit for purpose expectation either. It's a fact of life that you get what you pay for I'm afraid. Expensive filters = good quality optical glass that has been corrected and coated to very fine tolerances. Cheap filters = who knows what you are getting. That's my take anyway.

EDIT: UV filters are notorious for causing ghosting and flare, especially with digital cameras because of reflection from the sensor. If you really need to use one it is a case of the best is the best way to go.

[flake]

But as one internet article says, what's the point of bothering at all? It's incredibly difficult to scratch a lens, and the levels of force necessary would smash a UV filter anyway. There is proof of this if it's needed in the Ebay sales of thousands of lenses, it's a tiny proportion which have any damage. Not everyone looks after their lenses and protective filters are a throw back to the old days of photography.

Without a doubt the best optical quality is with no filter at all, which costs nothing!

[KeithT]

Here, here, Flake. I'll go along with that.

[cosmicma]

i think filters have a purpose but i wouldn't say lens protection was really one of them if it is then the cheaper the better because it's not really being used for it's real purpose