Filter quality - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Image Upload
1

end

BeeMan458
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #1 · Filter quality

There's a reason brass is used as opposed to Al and it ain't because it's a shock absorber.

Siiiigh!

"An aluminum filter frame will absorb some of the shock by bending and at a certain point the glass will chip or break, which is what the filter is supposed to do, protect the lens."

That's not what a filter is for. A UV filter protects the glass itself from dirt and grim such as salty spray, blowing snow, caustic environments such as nitro at a race track as well as the slop on a young child's fingers. Also, above 2km, it reduces UV rays. In the case of a 16-35L, it completes the manufactures recommended weather sealing process. If all one wants is impact protection, then religiously use a lense hood. Protecting a lense from impact is the last thing a filter is expected to do cause that's what it's not expected to do; that's what a lense hood does well as well as protects against extraneous side lighting.

Double siiiiigh!

I quit. Everybody, don't use your lense hoods and buy all the junk filters you can find. Save a bundle, have a nice life. All the expensive filter manufactures are out to deceive, distort and lie, just to make a buck. Smart people buy the cheapest filters they can find as buying expensive filters is all a ruse by high-end manufactures so as to rip the consumer off. Even lenses with no filters flare, so why bother.

Shhhheeesh!

Edited by BeeMan458 on Dec 05, 2007 at 09:17 AM GMT

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 04:46 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Filter quality

thank you we will

your coffee is a little strong today isn't it?

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 05:17 PM

claudermilk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Filter quality

Boy, testy today, aren't we?

oke:

You have a good point though, and I agree. Front-line defense for impact is the hood, not the filter. Hoya's marketing people came up with a good line for using Aluminum vs. Brass. My understanding & experience is that those filters using brass are less likely to bind than aluminum ones. Obviously the filter manufacturers love the "use a filter to protect your lens" idea as that sells a ton of product that otherwise would be a hard sell.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 07:33 PM

mrladewig
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · Filter quality

Brass is supposed to be better at for not galling or binding with lens components. Threaded aluminum is usually not very nice to work with as its usually really soft and can easy bind when threaded on aluminum, steel or other metals. But I'm not sure what the right answer is with alot of the newer lenses with plastic threading. Both materials would be capable of cutting the plastic if cross threaded.

My guess is that brass is still best when possible since you will be doing brass on brass if you need to stack filters.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 07:54 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Filter quality

In 30+ years handling filters and lenses, I have never had one bind. Is the extra cost really worth it. If you are worried about binding, get a pair of filter wrenches from B&H, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/251749-REG/General_Brand__Filter_Wrench_Set_of.html. Or, you can carry 1/4" width rubberbands.

My question, how many times have you had a filter bind, whether aluminum or brass?

As mrladewig indicates, with the newer thread materials on current lenses, is this an issue?

If my memory serves me, I remember a response from Mr. Posner of B&H mimicking the same sentiment.

Jim

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 09:09 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Filter quality

the anodizing of the threading prevents any real issues. the only real way you bind today is an out of round threaded ring or smushed threads. so its simple if its going on hard it will come off harder. so the only real advantage to the brass at this point is adding counter weight to the nose of the camera

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 05, 2007 at 11:57 PM

tigerp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Filter quality

that hoya's "alu vs. brass" argument is total marketing b/s.
in my experience, leica does make the best filter, especially in terms of construction of the ring, and i think they would also put the best glass on it, too

Edited by tigerp on Dec 06, 2007 at 02:09 AM GMT

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 06, 2007 at 01:18 AM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Filter quality

does leica make a 77mm or 82mm filter? if not then there not even in the conversation

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 06, 2007 at 04:48 AM

tigerp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Filter quality

sjms wrote:
does leica make a 77mm or 82mm filter? if not then there not even in the conversation

Good question. I don't know. I have not seen one. But I have a few Leica filters on my M lenses (smaller thread size: 39mm, 49mm etc if I remember correctly). They are of the highest quality. The biggest Leica filter I know is the one on my Leica R 280mm f/2.8. It's 112mm.
BTW, I thought we are discussing Jim's question of who makes the best filters. I don't see him limiting his question to the 77mm or 82mm thread size. If my reading comprehension was that bad, I apologize

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 06, 2007 at 07:20 AM

Jim Victory
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #10 · Filter quality

I'm curious of which of the Hoya filters are considered better. The Pro 1 Digital or the Super HMC?

I have been using B&W's but I'm also looking at a 82mm filter for my 16-35 f/2.8L II that won't break the bank. I'm interested in both UV and CPL and I have only one Hoya CPL and it is a bitch to clean where my Kaesemann is a breeze.

Jim

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 07, 2007 at 06:32 AM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Filter quality

tigerp wrote:
sjms wrote:
does leica make a 77mm or 82mm filter? if not then there not even in the conversation

Good question. I don't know. I have not seen one. But I have a few Leica filters on my M lenses (smaller thread size: 39mm, 49mm etc if I remember correctly). They are of the highest quality. The biggest Leica filter I know is the one on my Leica R 280mm f/2.8. It's 112mm.
BTW, I thought we are discussing Jim's question of who makes the best filters. I don't see him limiting his question to the 77mm or 82mm thread size. If my reading comprehension was that bad, I apologize

absolutely not. i would like to see the price on a leica wetzlar made 77mm filter though it would be amusing.

and actually they do a UVa filter is $140 no multicoating

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 07, 2007 at 05:23 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Filter quality

Jim Victory wrote:
I'm curious of which of the Hoya filters are considered better. The Pro 1 Digital or the Super HMC?

I have been using B&W's but I'm also looking at a 82mm filter for my 16-35 f/2.8L II that won't break the bank. I'm interested in both UV and CPL and I have only one Hoya CPL and it is a bitch to clean where my Kaesemann is a breeze.

Jim

I spoke with THK (US distributor of Hoya) this morning about Hoya/Kenko filters. The Pro 1 Digital series is specifically designed for digital cameras. Supposedly, the digital multicoating on the filters are similar to SHMC with some modifications in the IR and UV bands to account for digital sensors. The glass is the same and has black edging to reduce reflection. The rings are knurled and are low profile. The rings have a black coating that reduces reflection and is impregnated with silicon to help reduce galling.

With regards to cleaning the Hoya filters, it was recommended that a denatured alcohol solution with lens tissue is the best method. Eclipse solution was suggested.

Previously, I wrongly stated that Kenko was the parent company of Hoya. Hoya and Kenko are in 50/50 partnership. I was correct in stating that Hoya and Kenko filters are the same.

I'm currently waiting receipt of a Kenko 82mm Pro 1 Digitial filter for my 16-35 f2.8L II. It was less expensive than its Hoya twin when purchased from hvstar ($31). I have been using a slim B+W MRC CPL with the lens without any problems. I fully expect I will have the same when I get the Kenko.

It is about value rather than perceived quality.

Jim

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 07, 2007 at 08:57 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #13 · Filter quality

"It is about value rather than perceived quality.

"

Perceived

Wow! This just keeps getting better and better.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 07, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #14 · Filter quality

jhom wrote:

It is about value rather than perceived quality.

Jim

Perceived quality? I'll have to remember that after reading the next thread about a Hoya CPL that has self-destructed in its owner's hands.

Just trying to help you out here, Thomas.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 07, 2007 at 11:46 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #15 · Filter quality

Thanks!

Some here think they have single-handily set the filter world on it's ear by using words like "perceived" or using childish arguments of convenience as if there's some sort of conspiracy by B+W's marketing to rip consumers off and none of what's been shown to exist, does. All of a sudden, in the space of one single thread on a web based forum, B+W has gone from being "the" photographic gold standard in regard to build quality and anti-reflection coatings to becoming a deceptive poser/rip; perceived.

Wow!

Amazing!

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 12:17 AM

runamuck
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · Filter quality

The brass/aluminum question is just that--a question. Aluminum wiring is banned in many electrical codes because of the tendency of aluminum wiring to "creep" under pressure, and loosen. However, some grades of aluminum creep far worse than others. This said, I've never had a filter get stuck. The "sacrificial metal" argument may or may not be valid. Both sides of this argument have good points.

Now, not all of us are shooting spreads for GQ or Architectual Digest. If you are doing these, congrats. Your prices surely reflect the cost of your highend filters and other equipment. Not all of us are able to pass such costs on ot others.

I'm not doing these things, and never will. I'm shooting only for personal enjoyment and competition in a camera club. I sell some of my work, but I don't push it.

I have in my arsenal several brands of filters. B+W, Hoya, Quantaray and even a Kodak Gear filter. So far, I have been totally unable to identify which brand filter was used on a particular photo.

Not all of us have the same needs, abilities, and budgets. We all try to do the best wecan with what we have and can afford.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 02:32 AM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Filter quality

This evening I purchased some denatured alcohol to test its ability to clean the Hoya filter. I made a solution of 2:1 water to denatured alcohol. I placed several finger prints on the Hoya. Using a microfiber cloth a wetted a corner and applied it to the Hoya. The finger prints came off easily. I dried the filter with the remaining sections of the microfiber cloth. Quick, simple and easy to do. I then repeated the process on a B+W Kaeseman MRC CPL. Also, quick, simple and easy to do. Was the cleaning the Hoya noticably more difficult to clean? Nope, not if you have the right tools.

The one thing I will probably change is the dilution of the denatured alcohol solution. It will be more volatile if I use a 1:1 mixture or even straight up. I think a different dilution will facilitate cleaning even more. The person I spoke with at THK uses and recommended a solution of 30% denatured alcohol diluted and 70% ether. He liked the volatility of his solution. For most consumers, Ether is a bit more difficult to get than water.

Jim

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 03:33 AM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #18 · Filter quality

But why even deal with special cleaning solvents, mixtures, and processes? Not to mention the time and added expense factor. I recently spent nine days in Utah and Arizona...even with the occasional fingerprint, cleaning the B+W MRC filters (CPL and UV) consisted of using a rocket blower, a little warm breath, and a microfiber cloth. Very easy, very little time, and definitely no additional expense of 'volatile' chemical mixtures, to use your words.

Not saying you must own B+W filters...but to each his own. I'm not a pro by any means, but I do value my time. I just can't see myself driving to some supplier, buying cleaning solvents (alcohol and ether), and then driving back home to mix up a batch when a simple little exhale and wipe with a cloth will do the job. If a filter needs much more than that to clean, then something's amiss. I just don't see a need to overcomplicate things. Your cost savings are probably getting eaten up in chemical costs, driving time, and 'lab' time. But if that's your preference, no one can argue with it. There's no real answer to the filter questions...

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 01:50 PM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #19 · Filter quality

Mike Ganz wrote:
jhom wrote:

It is about value rather than perceived quality.

Jim

Perceived quality? I'll have to remember that after reading the next thread about a Hoya CPL that has self-destructed in its owner's hands.

Just trying to help you out here, Thomas.

Wow...call me Carnac:

HOYA came apart

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 02:03 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #20 · Filter quality

There is an answer as there's a pecking order in the case of filters and quality. Some delight in making things difficult as opposed to just going with the flow, acknowledging these facts and moving forward, accordingly. Nothing wrong with saving a few bucks but in doing so there are real issues in regard to quality. To project that it's all a manufacture's based marketing shame, being foisted on the ignorant consumer is to be foolish at best.

My take on the thread and what it reveals; a personal philosophical (reality check) evaluation.

Life, in real terms is simple, maybe that's why some insist on making it complicated.

My migration; junk filters > HOYA S-HMC > B+W MRC. And when the need arises, I'll bump my MRC CirPl to Kaesemann. A thought; it now costs over a hundred bucks to fill the truck with gas; thanks to the shenanigans of futures speculators with their disingenuous comments of adding liquidity to the marketplace in order to hide the truth of their behavior; greed for their sake. The world's population being damned in the process. In the meantime, for the wife and I to do a movie, popcorn, soda and a hot dog (a cheap night out for a few hours) costs fifty bucks and yet some here are going quibble over quality and fifty bucks like it's the end of their wallet and they're some sort of fiscally conservative genius. Go ahead, save the money, nothing wrong with that but call it what it is; an effort to save some bread as it's okay to not find the minute differences worth the increased entry fee.

Siiiiigh!

As the world turns, so do we all but for some, the world spins and they don't cause the ground around them ain't moving.

An aside, here's what HOYA has to say about filter cleaning and chemicals:

http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/coatings.html

CLEANING YOUR FILTERS:
Due to their high precision, filters should always be handled with care and kept clean whenever possible. Filters should be cleaned gently with just a lens tissue or soft cotton cloth, such as Hoya's Hi-Tech Microfibre cleaning cloth.

Never use any chemicals, such as lens cleaning fluid, on your filters, as these can damage the coatings. If any stubborn stains occur, these can usually be washed off with some clean water and a soft cotton cloth.

One might want to make note in regard to the part about not using "any" chemicals. Doesn't sound encouraging in regard to the use of alcohol and the longevity of coatings.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 02:13 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #21 · Filter quality

I appreciate the comments of my fellow FMers on this topic. However, I would like to remind some of the posters of the original question. I am looking for evidence (preferably objective) demonstrating filter quality. I began with the question of IQ, then moved on to other filter features.

So far, I have not found, through my limited internet searches, what I consider appropriate evidence to justify many of the claims that have been perpetuated in various threads. I appreciated those who have listed links that I have missed in my search. However, I'm still searching. I am hoping that the answer is still out there.

What I have found so far are many personal testimonials for one brand versus another. While this is informative, it is subjective. I have not found a contemporary review of filters similar to those offered when a new camera body is introduced. The questions still remains unanswered.

For many B+W considered the best or even a "gold standard?" Then, why aren't Heliopan or Lecia filters the best or gold standards? What are the bases for such claims? In the biomedical field, there are specific ways of establishing the gold standard. So far, I have yet to be shown published evidence of criterion tests for this benchmark.

I may be asking too much of a hobby.

Jim

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 04:08 PM

BeeMan458
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #22 · Filter quality

"I am hoping that the answer is still out there."

There's a reason you're not stepping up and doing the tests yourself.

"In the biomedical field, there are specific ways..."

Nobody is stopping you from running and posting your own optical lab, peer reviewed, published tests.

"I may be asking too much of a hobby."

Me thinks you're asking (expecting) too much of the participants of this forum as sometimes our personal experiences are going be both our guide and reference.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 04:11 PM

Mike Ganz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #23 · Filter quality

jhom wrote:
I appreciate the comments of my fellow FMers on this topic. However, I would like to remind some of the posters of the original question. I am looking for evidence (preferably objective) demonstrating filter quality. I began with the question of IQ, then moved on to other filter features.

So far, I have not found, through my limited internet searches, what I consider appropriate evidence to justify many of the claims that have been perpetuated in various threads. I appreciated those who have listed links that I have missed in my search. However, I'm still searching. I am hoping that the answer is still out there.

What I have found so far are many personal testimonials for one brand versus another. While this is informative, it is subjective. I have not found a contemporary review of filters similar to those offered when a new camera body is introduced. The questions still remains unanswered.

For many B+W considered the best or even a "gold standard?" Then, why aren't Heliopan or Lecia filters the best or gold standards? What are the bases for such claims? In the biomedical field, there are specific ways of establishing the gold standard. So far, I have yet to be shown published evidence of criterion tests for this benchmark.

I may be asking too much of a hobby.

Jim

Personally, I think you're consumed with something that, in the long run, probably doesn't even matter to us mere hobbyists. If you cannot detect any degradation in image quality with what you are using, why even worry about it? On one hand, you're concerned about filter 'quality', but on the other hand you mention that higher-end filters only offer "perceived quality". Which is it, and how did you arrive at that conclusion? If you think that the quality of "higher end" filters is only perceived, then the entire thread is pretty meaningless IMO. Keep using what you're using, and I'll continue to waste my money on my perceived higher-quality B+W filters, albeit minus all the nasty chemicals. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but sometimes we as hobbyists (or just plain old gearheads) get too hung up on things that really will have no effect on what we are doing. As I stated earlier, having to concoct a chemical soup to remove fingerprints from a filter means that something is amiss...there's no perception about a higher-quality MRC coating that only requires a little warm breath and soft cloth to come clean. Life's too short to fret over the minutiae. Just my final two cents.

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 08, 2007 at 04:55 PM

Bearmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #24 · Filter quality

Well, it's finally arrived, sort of....

I was in Borders last night and picked up a magazine from England called Digital Photographer Black and White. It was actually two magazines glued to each other back to back. The other side was something about portraits. It was $30.

It contained an article comparing the B+W, Hoya, and Cokin polarizing filters. It wasn't the scientific article that you were looking for, but more of a user review comparison. They did rate the optical (and build) quality of the B+W as the best of the three noting that none of the others could match a photo of blue sky with clouds. They felt the B+W had the best color rendition of the three. They also mentioned how if you look at a reflected lamp on the filter surface while holding the filter, there was much less reflected light from the B+W due to the MRC coating. A side bar also listed some other filters including Nikon, Canon, etc. but it didn't appear that these were as rigorously tested.

Barry

Edited on Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Dec 09, 2007 at 04:20 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #25 · Filter quality

Barry, thanks for the lead. I will see if I can get a copy of the article. It would be interesting to evaluate the parameters used by the reviewer for his comparison and the specific results.

Jim

Dec 09, 2007 at 05:33 PM


FM Forums \| General Gear-talk \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end