As a former pro who has seen a lot of camera equipment in 40 years, I believe there is a difference in filters. That said, it is often not enough of a difference to justify the cost. My former partner, who had everything labeled Nikon, conducted a series of challenges with me and my cheap (but name independent brand) filters. The conclusion - not much difference. True, his did last longer and were less likely to get broken, scratched or become loose in their mounting - all of which has happened to me. However, his cost from five to ten times what mine cost and we could never see anything different in the real results - on the prints.

Therefore I have a number of name brand cheap filters, and a few unique (Moose Peterson) ones which cost a bunch. Of course, YMMV but I think "Rolls Royce" filters are much like Monster cables for your stereo system. They look better but they don't make any significant difference in the final outcome, despite their cost. My 2 cents.

Jim Cummings

Years ago, I bought a cheap(ish) replacement UV filter to use with my Olympus OM2n, whose Zuiko lenses were beyond reproach. I was puzzled as to why many of my shots were soft and, worse, varied across the frame although at an inconsistent angle (if you see what I mean!). Fearing the worst (shifted elements) I then realised that it was happening with all the lenses of that filter size I used. That cheapo filter actually varied in thickness across its surface! Great relief all round, but a lesson to buy known branded filters in future.

John

I think that you're probably overstating it quite a bit. When it comes to monster cables there is no difference at all, the things they're charging for tend to make as much difference as arrows to show the electrons where to go.

When it comes to filters, there's more that can be done, there's the quality of the ring, regularity of the glass, is the glass laminated or colored through and through. Will the filter over time start to come unlaminated or discolored.

That's not necessarily to say that going high end is the best in all cases, just that there's far more that can be done with a filter than with cables. The trick ultimately is to figure out which bits of luxury are actually necessary and which ones are a waste of cash. Ultimately, any image you take through the filter is going to have an additional element in front and it's worth considering whether a particular brand or filter is going to unnecessarily degrade the image.

Admittedly, I tend to take good care of my gear and usually opt to spend a bit more where possible to get more reliability because I'm outside and need gear that's going to work in the element without benefit of climate or a lot of lighting equipment.

I also wonder if the top-end filters are worth the money, and I certainly agree that if you can't see the difference in the print, you should be content with the cheap filter.

But when it comes to cheap close-up filters vs. better ones, the difference in the print can be obvious.

Of course, calling these items "filters" is stretching the definition a bit, in any case.  But I've found the cheap ones essentially unusable.