are all filters the same? is there a difference between a $10 tiffen uv filter and a $50 hoya "super multi-coated" uv filter?
i think the answer is definitely yes. filters create flare.
how much of a difference does better glass and better coatings make? i don't know. some people assert that they make a large difference. this page demonstrates a moderate difference.
--
is the difference worth $40?
if you rarely shoot in conditions that create flare (and when you do the flare is significant), then the difference probably isn't worth it. there will always be some flare created by the uv filter, no matter how good the coating is. so you'll go from a ton of flare to a moderate amount of flare--still ruining your image. on those occasions, you should remove the filter, regardless of how good the filter is.
however, you may be at risk for small amounts of flare fairly often, and you may not want to be removing your protective uv filter frequently whenever you suspect a bit of flare may affect your exposure. in this case, it may be worth $40 to get a good filter and reduce flare. if there isn't a high degree of flare, the better filter may reduce flare from being noticeable to being virtually unnoticeable.
i think a good filter is a good idea with film. with digital, you can review your image, notice flare, and re-shoot the image with the filter removed. however, if you're shooting film and you leave your filter on because you think it's a low risk situation for flare, you might ruin the exposure unknowingly. you might forego future heartache by investing $40 in a nice filter.
i think the answer is definitely yes. filters create flare.
how much of a difference does better glass and better coatings make? i don't know. some people assert that they make a large difference. this page demonstrates a moderate difference.
--
is the difference worth $40?
if you rarely shoot in conditions that create flare (and when you do the flare is significant), then the difference probably isn't worth it. there will always be some flare created by the uv filter, no matter how good the coating is. so you'll go from a ton of flare to a moderate amount of flare--still ruining your image. on those occasions, you should remove the filter, regardless of how good the filter is.
however, you may be at risk for small amounts of flare fairly often, and you may not want to be removing your protective uv filter frequently whenever you suspect a bit of flare may affect your exposure. in this case, it may be worth $40 to get a good filter and reduce flare. if there isn't a high degree of flare, the better filter may reduce flare from being noticeable to being virtually unnoticeable.
i think a good filter is a good idea with film. with digital, you can review your image, notice flare, and re-shoot the image with the filter removed. however, if you're shooting film and you leave your filter on because you think it's a low risk situation for flare, you might ruin the exposure unknowingly. you might forego future heartache by investing $40 in a nice filter.
if i were to purchase a high-end lens ($1000+), i think i'd spend $40 to $60 on a hoya or b+w multi-coated filter.
I'll buy a cheap 72mm uv filter then set up a comparative test with andyp's expensive one.
(deal, andyp?)
(deal, andyp?)
I checked that out, but I'd like to see the flair comparison in color photographs. Aside from making the flare smaller, I wonder if a higher quality filter would reduce the array of colors you sometimes find in lens flair, too.