The difference between 'cheap' and 'expensive' lens filters

[tgabe213]

I picked up a D3100 a few weeks back, and bought this UV filter. $10, nice and cheap. I don't anticipate using the kit lens too often.

I've got a Nikon 35mm 1.8 on order from Amazon, and I'm wondering if I should be picking up something more than the $10 UV filter, or if the extra dollars play in, and what the other filters are used for.

 

[PS-RagE]

Better yet, fold that $10 and put it back in your pocket. The sensor is not affected by UV light like film would have been. Why add an extra layer of cheap, flat glass to shoot through? If you are concerned about "protection", keep your lens cap on when not in use and use your hood at other times.

 

[SilverMK3]

A cheap, uncoated UV filter will cause problems such as reflections, ghosting, loss of contrast, flaring, and vignetting. More expensive filters do their best at minimizing these negative side-effects by applying special coatings and using higher quality glass; none will do as good a job as not having a filter at all.

UV filters were used to prevent sunlight from giving film photos a blue/cyan cast. As PS-RagE said, your digital camera's sensor is not sensitive to UV light so there's no benefit to using one, only a whole lot of negatives.

The only time you will want to use a filter is to take advantage of the effect it provides, ie: circular polarizer, neutral density, etc. have a distinct effect on your photos. These effects are desirable and outweigh the negative side-effects of an added piece of glass. Because a UV filter does not provide a useful function, you are only left with the negative side effects.

The only time a UV filter might be useful is when you know your lens' front element will definitely get dirty/wet; for example an extreme close-up of dog or child's face. Then it is easier to clean the filter than to mess with the coatings on your lens.

 

[Auric]

I've also found that cheap filters tend to be harder to clean. However, I always keep a UV filter on my lenses (unless I'm using a CP instead). Most of them are Hoyas that probably cost me $50 a pop.

While everything Silver said is true, a good UV filter will only exhibit those problems very rarely under specific conditions. When you get a feel for what those conditions are, it's pretty easy to make minor adjustments to avoid them, Photoshop them out, or even use them for creative effect.

In exchange, you get peace of mind. If I'm shooting at the beach on a windy day, I don't want to have to worry about the front of my lens getting sand-blasted. I also don't want to have to put my lens cap back on after every single shot.

 

[darktiger]

Also I use to find that my lens hunts more often with a cheap filter on.... even expensive ones I have had this issue. Back in the days I use to keep a nice $120 B+W UV Filter and kept it on for about a year. I took it off one day and never had a problem with them off. I am very rough with my lens and never feel the need to put my UV filter back on...

 

[EngrChris]

The only time a "cheap filter" would be useful are hazardous environments like, damaging the front element with tiny stones, sand etc, or water, if the lenes requires something to seal the front element.