"Jeremy" <jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message news:bzcTa.16467$Mc.1266007@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> x-no-archive: yes

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message

> news:bfjhqo$gsj$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...

[...]

> > Hoya single-coated metal-rimmed versions as the best buy in good-quality

> > filters (though some samples can be defective - as with anything, check

> > upon purchase) - these have good enough rims, glass, and coating for

> > most purposes, and cost less than "fancy" filters with no particular

> > practical advantages, and are generally better than Tiffen filters (though I

> > buy these to get filter types not offered by others - and put the glass in

> > better rims

[...]

> Bob Monaghan's site addresses some of the differences between Tiffen and

> other brands. Tiffen typically sandwiches tinted gelatin between two pieces

> of glass, rather than dying in the mass. Yet, Bob Monaghan said that his

> tests revealed no difference in image quality between Tiffen and other

> brands, which seeded surprising.

Not really...;-)

BTW, it is not the optical deficiencies I complain about

with Tiffen (though I've heard many are uncoated - and they

do "self-fog", turning them into diffusion filters unless cleaned

occasionally...), it is their thick, crude rims (and the fogging...;-).

> While there *may* be quality issues that are more apparent in

> low-end/unbranded-type filters, I can't help but wonder what justifies the

> huge price difference between, say a Hoya and a B+W? Is an $89.00 filter

> going to produce images that are discernibly better than a $19.99 filter, or

> are we being ridiculous?

I think the latter - though there can be perceived (if not really

present in practice...;-) advantages/disadvantages to either...;-)

> It is strange that the photo magazines have never thoroughly tested and

> reported on this question. Are they trying to keep us in the dark?

This is not strange at all, since photo magazines are part of

the mfgr's marketing, and "reviews" are ads in disguise (ever

see a bad camera or lens reviewed? ;-). The magazine publishers

have no intention of telling Schneider, for instance, that its full-page

ad touting the wonders of German Schott glass and spiffy rims

is hooey in terms of practical reality - and the publishers do have

a vested interest in keeping us all wondering (and insecure) about

relative filter quality, instead of doing a simple comparative test

report which could kill continued interest in expensive filters...;-).

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com