all i did was show that all filters of this type will flare no matter what the price in certain situations. in the case of point source light its going to happen. its no troll its a fact. i don't care if its an LED or sun. it will happen. and if it does it takes but a moment to resolve for that individual image you want.
the pot calling the kettle black:
"To put on the front of your (How much did you pay for your 16-35L?) $1,350.00 (USD) lense. Ooookay, but when flare becomes an issue, I'll look forward to the requited... "You were right Bee." In the meantime, I hope you find your decision to your satisfaction."
sjms wrote:
all i did was show that all filters of this type will flare no matter what the price in certain situations.
Yes, all filters will flare. In fact, the hoya shmc coating is reported to have the highest transmittance of any coating (reported by hoya, but no other manufacturer seems to call them out over this ). They hoyas are more difficult to clean and aren't built as well as some other brands, but as far as flare goes they are top tier. And this is coming from a diehard heliopan person.
please explain how a fairly simple UV filter can be built better. if you are referring to the B+W brass rings be advised they are starting to be delivered with alloy ones these days.
Here is Hoyas explanation why they use aluminum rather than brass:
Hoya believes the filter frame is an extremely important part of the filter as well. Hoya uses machined aluminum frames to hold their high quality glass. They prefer aluminum to other materials because it is strong enough to hold up to years of use. Some say that brass is the best material to use, however, Hoya doesn’t hold that view and here is why; brass is a far more rigid material than either aluminum or the polycarbonates that are being use in today’s lens barrels. This means that, should the front of the lens get hit, the rigid brass filter ring will transfer almost all the force of the shock to the lens barrels and mechanics. 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. Replacing a filter is always preferable to getting a lens repaired.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
tigerp wrote:
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
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.
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.
oke: 
As mrladewig indicates, with the newer thread materials on current lenses, is this an issue? 
