In article <01bbff1c$b935d260$0ce440ce@default>, afc@cl-sys.com says...
>At Center wrote in article
><19970109182400.NAA14356@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

>> Is there really a significant difference between the quality of images
>> produced by Tiffen (or other brands) and Top-of-the-line brands like B&W?
>> If so, what's the difference ?

>flatness, consistency, accuracy of mount, multicoating all of which can
>contribute to sharper images. It's not difference than a lens. Can you
>imagine putting a cheap filter on a high quality expensive lens. You've
>just brought the whole lens down to the optical quality of the filter.

Hmmm, I think much of the above belongs more in the realm of myth than
reality...;-) Very cheap filters ARE often poor, but mid-range filters,
like Tiffen, Vivitar, and (my favorite) Hoya are generally fine for
even critical work. More money buys a fancy name (Nikon, B & W), but
not better optics, practically speaking. The advantages of heavy rims
and multicoating are questionable, but the advantages of thin
(non-vignetting) rims and lower price are not - and the photographic
results are the same when shooting through medium-priced glass filters,
or expensive ones...
Hope This Helps