Canon filters are a lot cheaper than other brands. Are they a lot cheaper?
How do they compare? One would think if Canon made and sold "L" lenses their filter quality would compare...whadda you think? Thanks
Don't bother with the Canon filters. They are cheaper because they are lower quality glass. In the filter world, you usually get what you pay for.
--Mark
rod, i tested a couple of canon filters against my B+Ws, various hoyas (standard, super HMC, and ultra), a tiffen and a heliopan. the canons were the worst of the lot, even worse than the ultra cheapie green label hoyas. i cannot explain why, especially when rumours are that tiffen makes canon-brand filters. better off to stick with the B+W MRCs and the hoya SHMCs (or pro-1s).
In the USA, Canon UV filters are actually rebranded Tiffens and not worth buying.
In Asia, Europe and other parts of the world, Canon's "Protect" filter is available and is an extremely high quality protective filter with Canon's own Super Spectra coating.
I have been using the Canon circular polarizers and have been very pleased with them. They are definitely not made by Tiffen since the Canon ones are multicoated, and Tiffen does not make multicoated filters. Also, the Canon cirplr does not impart as much of a cold tinge to flesh tones as the Hoyas that I have used before as well, so at least for cirplrs, I would definitely go with Canon again.
I don't use UV filters, so can't say anything about them.
I'm with Rod, I'm mystified how they can make such nice (and expensive) lenses but yet can't manage to make a decent filter? Maybe they'd prefer people not to use them so they have to replace their scuffed lenses every few years?
I am curious how you would test filters, I have a range from cheap to expensive and would be curious to figure out how to tell if it was worth the money for the spendy ones.
teriba wrote:
Because they are not a filter company. Just like you wouldn't buy Porsche tires. Sure they make great cars, but they don't make tires.
But filters are made from glass so Canon should be able to do that well if they had the interest. I still use Nikon filters sometimes on my Canon lenses. The filters are multicoated and have nice brass rings.
Scott T wrote:
I am curious how you would test filters, I have a range from cheap to expensive and would be curious to figure out how to tell if it was worth the money for the spendy ones.
scott, i think it is easy enough to set up a test scene, mount the camera on a sturdy tripod, get the settings just right, and then just begin taking a series of shots with either the remote or the timer, first with no filter and then with each filter (c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y installing/removing each one of course so the camera and lens don't move). be sure to set white balance, focus, aperture, shutter speed all on manual so they don't change between shots. i usually do two sets of tests: one with more or less "normal" conditions and also a "torture test" setup: shooting toward sun, no hood, bright light, etc. with the goal of inducing flare, ghosting, etc.
I still use Nikon filters sometimes on my Canon lenses. The filters are multicoated and have nice brass rings.