I use Hoyas and B+W(mostly) and never noticed any differences, partly because I never really bothered myself to find out.
I find quite a few quoting not using expensive filters on cheap lenses a bit strange.
While the lens may be cheap, sticking on a lousy filter will only serve to make things worse.
If the lens is cheap but gives superb pics, put on a cheap filter?
Between $80 and a $20 filter. Why give up IQ for ALL your pics for $60?
If the lens is so cheap that it doesn't deserve a good filter, means it takes crap pics, you shouldn't be using it at all and the topic of filters is irrelevant.
The Hoya HMC actually outscored the B+W MRC in a controlled test environment... So HMC is better or equal in IQ to B+W MRC... so what are you really paying for??? Definitely not IQ.
Results here: http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article...d_summary.html
Hope you know how much the Hoya HMC 77mm UV costs... and how much the B+W MRC UV-haze costs... More expensive, made in Germany doesn't necessarily mean it is better. Sure, the B+W MRC is easier to clean, but to say it gives better IQ than cheaper filters... well... some determined group of people in Poland just proved you wrong.
Last edited by daredevil123; 7th October 2011 at 02:55 PM.
but of cos if your lens cost more then $400 and above to even a few thousand dollars, what is a $100 UV filter that protects your expensive equipment?
bottom line, Hoya Pro1 digital is good and cheap much much better then Tokina glass UV filter (this doesn have coating!) but thickness coating wise, B+W XS-Pro series is better but more costly of cos.
I'm not comparing brands. The point is about putting on good decent filters and not be guided by the price of the lens.Originally Posted by sinned79
Yes, I will put a $100 filter on a $150 lens or for that matter a $50 lens.
Point is to put on a good filter or none at all, nothing to do with brands or cost of the lens.
i put filter on only those lens that i find too expensive to risk.
brand and model does matters.
cos a tokina glass UV filter cost $10-20, a Hoya Pro1 digital cost $50-60+ range, a B+W xs-pro cost $90 and more range.
for a cheap 50mm f1.8, i definitely wun splurge on Hoya or B+W, but neither i will buy a cheapo Tokina (that will cause flare issues), hence i choose to go without.
but if it is a 50mm f1.4, i will definitely choose between Hoya or B+W, but for good investment (to reuse the filter), i will go for B+W.
get it? (from my point of view)
it is not a must to put UV filter actually. i know of photographers who swear by not putting any filters but in my case, i dun dare to risk my expensive lens without filters.
UV filters does nothing for digital cameras. All it does is just to offer a little more protection for the front element. Some people even argue if there is any protection at all. For sinned79's example... like the 50/1.8, the front element is so recessed that no such protection is needed. So on that lens, personally, I will not use a UV filter. For the price of the B&W, I will buy another lens if and when it breaks. so far it never broke or have scratches on the front element, up till the day I sold it.
No need to argue. This is very subjective, and not depend on wat lens you used. it more on individual purchasing power.
D700 - 24-70mm F2.8 ED - 105mm VR2 Micro - Samyang 14mm - 50mm 1.8D - Mb 10 - SB900 - SB400
as a hobbyist, nothing hurts more than accidentally bumping on my lens' front element.
i don't earn a single cent out of my equipments, so a layer of protection is a must.
lens hood + filter, i have both and i choose to get B+W for my lenses because i wanna have a balance between IQ degradation and lens protection as well.
since i already splurged few thousands on my lenses, i will go the extra mile and get quality filters for them too.
PS: the B+W is indeed easier to clean, when compared to my previous Hoya HMC. stubborn stains stay on the Hoya but not on the B+W.
I would suggest cushion hood ur lens when climbing rocky area, like using those lens changer that was suppose to fix on belt.Originally Posted by NikF601
Its like buying insurance and a dog for your house. If you are young..will u buy the most expansive and premium package? u will think..ahh whats the point. If your house is very big. Do you feel safer to put a small dog or a bigger dog to guard your house?
Last edited by TWmilkteaTW; 8th October 2011 at 11:21 AM.
but what i am trying to say here, what pushes me to buy such good UV filters also depends on the value of the lens.
for example, i only use B+W xs-pro for my below lens which cost me all more then $1k.
35mm f1.4, 135mm f2, 17-40mm f4
but for my old MF lens below
yashica 50mm f1.4 (which cost me ard $200 with adapter)
olympus 200mm f4 (which cost me ard $200 with adapter as well)
i choose to go without, cos i cannot justify spending half the amount of what i paid for to protect these lens.
likewise, for 50mm f1.8, if spoilt, i just buy new one, but imagine
50mm f1.8 + expensive UV filter = spend x2 $100 = spoilt
buy another 50mm f1.8 = spend x1 $100
total = $300
i can buy 3 50mm f1.8!
most importantly, back to TS question, there is a difference in high end filters
Cheap filter (Tokina glass, no coating)
- Flares problem
- Hard to clean (leaves smudges)
- Poor construction
- Degrades your photo quality
High end filter
- Minimal flares problem
- Easy to clean
but whether to go for cheap or high end UV filters, u decide yourself if your lens are worth it or can simply go without it!
Have used Hoya hmc and Pro 1 and also the B+W ones. TBH, never observe any difference in photos. The only difference is that B+W are so much easier to clean. Hoya seems to flare more at night, but I am not saying that the B+W doesn't. It is just the amount of flare.
Actually if you read the result in the lenstip.com filter test, the reason why the B+W scored so lowly is because of the high UV light transmission, which is not an issue in digital. B+W will give better result than the hoya due to better visible light transmission and flare resistance. Yet, because the difference is marginal, I really doubt that 1% more light will make any difference.
5D III l 14/2.8 l 24/1.4L II l Σ 50/1.4 l Σ 150/2.8 macro l 28-75/2.8 l
I used to own Rodenstocks and Kenkos but got rid of them cos they are a bitch to clean. There are actually tiny gaps in the aluminum ring of each make; these gaps trap dust and residue from lens tissue and whatever substance you'd use to clean your filter.
Can anyone explain the function of these gaps? i suspect they are there to facilitate the setting of the glass during manufacture.
B+W filters on the other hand are perfectly circular. I have 10 lenses of different makes. All are capped with a B+W
Last edited by leicauser; 17th November 2011 at 01:00 AM.
I pretty much feel that Hoya HD and B+W MRC filters are good choices. Ultimately the IQ difference is not visible to the naked eye (if any) amongst good filters. Your cheap 10-20 bucks filter may degrade IQ however.
I recently made a filter purchase and went for B+W MRC nano XS-PRO filters. One way to test filters is how much reflection they give off (at an angle), and the new B+W filters literally looks transparent!
Also, Hoya HD selling point is that it is hardened glass, 4x harder to break so they say. If you think this is an important point, I beg to differ.
I manage to find a cheapo emolux ($10 or less) filter I wanted to discard. Just out of curiousity, I seriously abused it. Slammed it hard on the floor, whacked it really hard with a high quality hardened steel sewing scissors. Used the scissors to scratch (under much pressure) the glass.
Guess what? Only the hard scratching left some hairline minor scratch marks. Not even visible unless angled against the light. The slamming and hitting with the scissors left no marks at all.
I suspect for most people, breaking their filters isn't exactly an easy thing to do in normal use.
Nevertheless, Hoya HD filters is cool for the ease of cleaning.
Just to add, I suspect it is pretty hard to make scratches on your lens too. I would still choose a filter because I like my lenses absolutely pristine. However, if you don't have one, you don't have to get all anxious over it.
That said, I would not buy a good filter for a 50mm F1.8 (saw some people discussing it). In fact, no filters just a hood for that one. Its a deeply recessed lens, hard to reach, and adding a filter may introduce flares for recessed lenses (one of the main degraders of IQ).
Last edited by ombre; 21st November 2011 at 10:29 PM.
Looking for Canon 100mm F2 USM :)
Sorry my friend, but I have to disagree with you on this part.Originally Posted by ombre
I keep this filter for times like these:
This poor thing fell from my lap while I was seated so it's only a good 2-foot distance from the floor. Shattered on impact. This is a 62mm B+W expense so I'm pretty sure you can imagine the pain already.
I say, given the right conditions, these things will break (not just B+W) so I'm kinda wondering here how seriously you abused that Emolux.
Careless pricks like me find the Hoya HD not a bad idea at all.