Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: B+W UV Filter Justified?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    73

    Default B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Is the above filter justified for use on the Sony DSC R1?
    Cathay charges about SG$79 for a 67mm unit
    Pls advise
    Jag

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Why not?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    73

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Just wanted to know if such an expensive filter would make a difference for an average camera.
    You sort of answered my quetion.
    I think I will get it.
    thanks
    jag

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    The only thing to justify is cost I suppose.

    Good filters degrade an image less. Poor filters degrade more.

    If you have to use a filter, surely you'd want one that offers the least amount of degradation, independent of whether the original image from the camera and/or the lens is fantastic/mediocre/lousy.

    Well.. i mean, if the lens absolutely sucks and you got it at a basement bargain price... would it be worthwhile to slap on that expensive filter anyway?

    I know I'm not answering the question directly, because this is a decision we cannot make for you

  5. #5
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Yatlapball is right.
    good lens goes with good filter
    good lens using poor filter, defeat the purpose of getting a good lens

    so spend the money within your mean.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  6. #6

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagdeep View Post
    Is the above filter justified for use on the Sony DSC R1?
    Cathay charges about SG$79 for a 67mm unit
    Pls advise
    Jag
    u can still use the filter if u r upgrading to DSLR (as long as the lens uses 67mm filter). i look at buying good filter as long term usage vs just using it for the present.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    I haven't had a 67mm filter thread lens for quite awhile...

  8. #8
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yatlapball View Post
    I haven't had a 67mm filter thread lens for quite awhile...
    yalar, all you have now is all the big big L lens liao, where got use 67mm?
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    If they made them with 67mm filter threads, I dun mind wor... if I recall... your 17-55 is also using a b+w right?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    73

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    **** MAN!

    Went to cathay to buy and my card was declined.
    Later found it was maxed out???

    Checked with HsBC and seems like someone in Italy has got my number and used it for flights for internet bookings???!!!

    HSBC investigating now.
    Be careful with online transactions.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagdeep View Post
    Is the above filter justified for use on the Sony DSC R1?
    Cathay charges about SG$79 for a 67mm unit
    Pls advise
    Jag
    It around that price for the 67mm MRC UV Haze 010 filter. But when i got mine last time for my 70-200 f/4, it was $78.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  12. #12

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Yes.. I also just got a B+W 67mm at $79. Only trust B+W and the Nikon NC.. since NC no have for 67mm.. go with B+W.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    U won't go wrong with a B+W.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Just to clear a slight misconception you seem to have, the filter would not "make a difference" in terms of improving your image quality.

    It will of course, degrade your image to a lesser degree, if a more expensive filter is used.

  15. #15

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    actually i think a 'good' UV filter contributes a small part of a 'good photo'.. and there are so many factors to make a photo perfect, i won't really think an expensive UV filter is need..i don't know how much it degrade an image..have someone really make a comparison?quite curious..

    but again, when someone see a good photo..i never see them asking what UV filter..ha =)

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio
    Posts
    1,199

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    I guess the coating on the filter plays a part too? I read from somewhere that coating on filters would help to minimize/prevent internal reflection caused by strong sunlight... And B+W filter coating is easier to clean as compared to some other brands.

    But I am only using Hoya filters. So cannot really commend too much on B+W.
    Let's get rolling :)

  17. #17
    Senior Member Leong23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    I will choose B+W, main reason is that it is so much easiler to clean.

    IQ wise, think that the difference is quite insignificant as compare with Hoya, but why if you had already spent so much on a expensive lens.

  18. #18

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Allow me to throw a spanner in the works...

    Concept 1 - Degrade as least as possible

    Assuming that you're not using a premium lens, a lot of compromises would have been made, both optically and mechanically in the lens. Therefore, it needs all the help it can get, and using the very best quality filters will help in any way possible (assuming that user wants to always fit a filter on).


    Concept 2 - The lens is not a top performer anyway, why waste money?

    Also holds water, because you can only do so much to help a less than ideal or lower quality lens.


    Concept 3 - Justifiable depends on a particular lens, and shooting conditions

    Purchase of ultra-high quality filters depend largely on shooting conditions, e.g., how often do you shoot into light sources, towards the sun etc? Will you see the difference between a $30 Hoya and a $70 B&W?


    Concept 4 - All filters degrade the image, so it's better not to have one

    I tend to notice that I take off any filters unless they are absolutely necessary - either to prevent possible damage to the front element, or when the use of a particular filter is essential to getting a picture.


    Concept 5 - If I'm spending that much on a filter, I'd rather get a manufacturer's filter

    Originally, people only bought B&W as an alternative to buying a Nikon or Canon filter because B&W were still cheaper, but now that the prices are so close, it doesn't make sense to get a B&W when I can get an original which has the (supposedly) same optical quality glass and coatings as my own lens. Also bear in mind that there was a lot of talk about different grades of B&W filters in the open market so how do we know for sure we're only getting the top quality stuff?


    Aside - I've found that oil and finger-print smudges are just as easy to clean on a Nikon and Canon filter as a B&W. Pentax SMC filters were more problematic - like Hoya.
    Last edited by Dream Merchant; 14th March 2008 at 11:32 AM.

  19. #19
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yatlapball View Post
    If they made them with 67mm filter threads, I dun mind wor... if I recall... your 17-55 is also using a b+w right?
    yes, it is, filter cost less than 5% of the lens cost.. why not?
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: B+W UV Filter Justified?

    Checked with HsBC and seems like someone in Italy has got my number and used it for flights for internet bookings???!!!

    HSBC investigating now.

    Be careful with online transactions
    I am interested to know more about this.
    I have avoided buying stuff using my credit card on the internet to prevent the same.
    How do you think it happened?
    Is HSBC going to ask you to pay for whatever the Italian scammer charged to your card?
    Last edited by ricohflex; 15th March 2008 at 12:09 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •