Expense Ratio of Filter:Lens

[Shoe]

This digital realm is very different to me than my old film kingdom.


Are there really differences for filters made for DSLRs versus SLRs? Like the Polarizers?


and... is there a new (new for me)rule-of-thumb for the expense ratio of a filter (e.g. skylight or UV) to the expense of a lens? due to the workings of a Digital SLR?

[Oren]

At least with my logic, a polarizing glass is a ploarizing glass - it doesn't matter what you do with it.

[Tony Printezis]

Are there really differences for filters made for DSLRs versus SLRs?


They should be mostly the same (and a lot of filters are called "digital" these days for purely marketing reasons). There is one exception though. The protector filters are typically UV for film, since they reduce the amount of UV flight that goes through them (as it affects film apparently). However, they don't do much for digital cameras, so digital protectors are actually clear, not UV. But, I don't think it makes much of a difference; my protectors are (B+W) UV protectors...


Tony

[Bob]

Filter should all work the same -digital or film. But, filters on wideangle lens tendto make the image edges softer.

[Colin]

I think that there's a reasoning that filters for digital cameras have coating to be less reflective of light reflected by the shiny sensor, but I haven't really noticed a difference between the coated and non-coated versions. I wasn't looking for a difference. I went with the MRC versions just because, but i wouldn't suggest anybody freak out about it. I was happy with the standard non-coated filters until I knew 'better' :D

[gofioamasado]

I guess that if I go for an MRC BW UV, I shall need an extra filter to protect this one, as maybe coating is something to take care of it. [:D][:D][:D]


Now, seriously, I have the normal versions of BW UV and c-POL on all my lenses, but lalely, i've been starting to think it has been an absurd waist of money, at least for my way of working. I don't think shooting digital may need UV filtering, and the time I'm taking my pics is quite short, so I think beeing careful with your stuff is enough protection the most of cases. I use to shoot landscapes with ultra wide angle lenses, so polarizing is not a good idea when you get a perfect blue sky, as you may get clipping in that area. Sure, there are more uses for filters, but those are mines.

[neustar_eric]

I think the use of UV filters for general purpose shooting makes very good sense, from the very least perspective in that they protect the lens itself from being destroyed/damaged should anything happen to the lens itself (ie, being dropped or something smacking into it). The relative cost of $70-80 for B&W UV filters on all my lenses to protect them is definitely worth it.

[Daniel Browning]

I highly recommend this great DPR filter thread ("http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=29592761).

[peety3]

There are differences in polarizing filters for auto-focus and manual-focus cameras: you need a circular polarizing filter for AF to work properly.