can the quality of a filter affect the quality of an image? (specifically ND or polarizers.)
For example, b+w vs some other mid-grade filters. is there really noticeable difference in quality and sharpness of the picture?
Try this quick test:
Get a proector and shine a light through a hand held filter onto a flat screen or white wall.
Rotate the filter.
Watch the funny patterns on the cheaper filters ...
A filter, no matter what brand, will affect an image somewhat. Its another piece of glass the camera must "look" through. Whether its noticeable, worth it, or not, is up to you. With the key word being noticeable difference, I personally don't feel like B+W vs mid grade filters is worth it. I'm sure some would agree and others would disagree with me. I believe someone on a different forum compared a high end Hoya and no filter and the only true discernible part of the image was a 100% crop of the bokeh or blurred parts of the photo.
There are purists that shoot without any filters unless they're trying to get an effect, circular polarizer, neutral density, etc. The argument is that modern lenses don't need UV filters anyways with their coatings and all. I use a UV filter sometimes mainly for dust and to prevent scratches on my lens. I believe the [very] slight loss in image quality is worth it.
how about ND or polarizer? should i spend extra for B+W? i guess ND/cpl are more of a concern because they are for special effects. i'm debating between hoya, tiffe, or B+W..
