I know this has been asked in many different ways by many FMers. However, I have yet to read an answer where the optical quality of filters from different manufacturers are compared side by side in a scientific or quasi-scientific manner. Like others, I have given testimonial responses why I would recommend one brand. The response is based on my personal use and perceived quality. However, it lacks rigorous or systematic testing. I'm wondering if a reader has run across any articles that actually compared the various brands of filters.

Thanks,
Jim

So, no one has run across a review comparing filters? Are we all just perpetuating manufacturers' claims and perceived quality without proof? I hope not.

Jim

many are victims of the Ad age.

"However, I have yet to read an answer where the optical quality of filters from different manufacturers are compared side by side in a scientific or quasi-scientific manner."

Cir-Pl? Kaesemann/MRC vs everybody else vs reality vs esoteric?

The easiest quantification that one at our level is able to easily see/experience will be in build (brass vs Al), anti-reflection coatings; flare and ease of cleaning.

The next level is light transmission; 96.4 vs 99,7 easily verifiable, with proper light measuring gear. This can be seen in exposure data; ~1/4 stop variation.

Now you're into manufacturing processes and the grinding of the glass to exacting levels of parallel flatness and the quality/color/neutrality of the glass used; distortion characteristics. Color/neutrality are of course, easily visualized by placing said filter on a white background; window glass vs Schott (Leica) glass.

As to optical flatness, one can go out and spend a few bucks for the appropriate size "optical flats"...

http://www.oceanoptics.com/Products/flats.asp

...which will easily allow one to see the imperfections of the ground surfaces. Who wants to buy flats, multiple filters and do a sampling test of ten/fifteen filters for each of the many manufactures available so as to get a proper statistical sampling?

"Are we all just perpetuating manufacturers' claims and perceived quality without proof?"

I don't think so as much is easily verifiable using only the simplest kitchen variety checks. In the end, my opinion, it boils down to how much testing gear is a gearhead expected to have on hand as in the case of the question, how hard is one expected to pound on an anvil?

"He, with trepidation in his heart, hits the "Send Reply" radio button."

http://photo.net/equipment/filters/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Filter-Reviews.aspx

I have seen other places where people have tested and reviewed various filters - you just need to spend a few hours Googling to find them ;-)

JimR

Hi Jim,

I like this test at lightrules too:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uvtest2

Thanks JimR and Steve. I read the-digital-picture.com and lightrules articles before I posted my message. I missed the photo.net article. Although enlightening, none of the three completely answer my questions. I would like to see a comparison of currently available multi-coated uv filters such as the Hoya/Kenko, B+W, and Helipan to name a few. I think an independent and unbiased compariosn of filters would be of significant value to digital photographers.

Jim

if you're looking for a definitive unbiased answer i don't think it exists.

"I would like to see a comparison of currently available multi-coated uv filters such as the Hoya/Kenko, B+W, and Helipan to name a few. I think an independent and unbiased compariosn of filters would be of significant value to digital photographers."

Allow me to repeat my comments, below:

"Who wants to buy flats, multiple filters and do a sampling test of ten/fifteen filters for each of the many manufactures available so as to get a proper statistical sampling?"

Or should I write: Whom among us and how would one suggest these costs (and time) be absorbed?

Any takers?

Allow me to add to my above ramblings; most of what we see at a 100%, on screen, far exceeds our eyes ability to resolve.

Not quite sure what your expectations of filters and testing are as me thinks you're moving into the realm of the esoteric. Most of what one can find as to issues of sharpness are a bit subjective in that they depend upon the skills of the person providing the sharpness comparison tests as no optical flat (empirical) comparisons were to be found.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100141

A popular flare test link.

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

This guy has waaaaaay too much time on his hands.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uvtest2

An old (possibly outdated) but interesting little tidbit.

http://home.c2i.net/jostein.oksne/Utstyr/filters.htm

The question, in my mind, boils down to: How hard does one wish to pound on the anvil and to what purpose?

Eventually, as one surfs the little bits and pieces one can find on the web, which other kind souls have posted links to (bless them) for us to find and share, one slowly sees a picture emerging (much like a print in developer) which qualifies the pecking order we have all come to know so well: B+W is the gold standard. One can spend more or they can spend less but one won't ever be steered wrong if the buying of B+W filters is suggested.

And there is this, about 4 years ago: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/73969/1

here are some crazy reflections mr home was referring to of a skyline at sunset through plate glass and a UV filter evening. i kinda like it

Thomas,

Thanks for the additional links. The article I find closest to what I am looking for is the old 1992 FOTO comparison of various branded filters (an oldie but goodie ). It provides me with some valuable information.

I agree with your supposition that there is a limit to my appreciation of differences. I cannot tell the difference between no uv filter and uv filter on IQ, at least for my Hoya SMC uv filters. Rather than making an idiosyncratic assumption, I have been seeking external confirmation of what I know.

Like you I appreciate the quality of the B+W CPLs. However, I don't think the benefits of the B+W CPLs necessarily translate to simple uv filters. Although I would like a more contemporary review, the FOTO article provides me with some additional support of my hypothesis. If IQ among similar featured uv filters are essentially the same, then I need to base my buying behavior on other differentiating factors. These factors along with my cost/benefit tolerance will point me in one direction or another.

It would have made my decison-making easier if a comprehensive review of filters was available. But by piecing together different sources of available information, I have reached a tentative conclusion.

Thanks for yours and everyones' input.
Jim

"However, I don't think the benefits of the B+W CPLs necessarily translate to simple uv filters."

But they do.... in the form of better build construction (brass vs Al), better multi-coatings which empirically reduces flare, resistance to scratching/wear and the added benefit in regard to ease of cleaning. Issues of color neutrality (simply place filter of question on white background) need to also be considered. As to issues of sharpness, that will take a comparative sampling via optical flats.

It has been shown via comparative samplings there is a difference in image quality, contrast and when it comes time to blow up images, the distortion one doesn't see at 8"x10", or the lack of micro-contrast (detail) will be painfully (as in too late) apparent.

" If IQ among similar featured uv filters are essentially the same, then I need to base my buying behavior on other differentiating factors."

It's been shown time and again that there are easily seen differences between different brands and sub-models within a manufacture's product line. In regards to UV filters, the sage refrain still stands, use no filter before it's time (always use the sunshade) and if you must use a filter, "always" use the best you can get; and in this case, the minimum for me is B+W.

"But by piecing together different sources of available information, I have reached a tentative conclusion."

I pray that it isn't to buy cheap or marginal UV filters.

The impetus for my current consideration of uv filters comes from the need to put a filter on my 16-35 f2.8L II as recommended by Canon. Automatically, I turned to my usual retailer of filters, hvstar. Instinctively, I wanted to buy an 82mm B+W MRC uv filter. However, hvstar doesn't carry them (or at least, I haven't seen them in stock each time I looked over several weeks). One feature I will not do without is multi-coating. I then looked at the prices for one on B&H, $105. This got me thinking and ultimately, the present thread.

In the meanwhile, I did a little research. Given I have been happy with Hoya SMC uv filters, I looked up hvstar's price for an 82mm one, $45 (Pro 1). This made me wonder about the differences. My main concern is IQ. If IQ is essentially the same, then Hoya. Can I live with quality differences? Well, based on 30+ years with filters, the answer is yes. I have lived with aluminum. I have never had a filter bind. Scratch resistance/wear? I've never had a cheap filter wear out or become scratched. Ease of cleaning? I need a little more effort in cleaning my Hoya. But with a microcloth and lenspen, it has not been that difficult or time-consuming to clean. Has a Hoya fallen apart during my use. No. So, I started to seriously consider a Hoya.

I went one step further. A little additional research revealed that Kenko is the parent company of Hoya. Kenko filters are the same as Hoyas. Kenko filters are less expensive. Hvstar also sells Kenkos, so I ordered an 82mm Kenko Pro 1 Digital uv filter for $31. Is the B+W 3x better than the Kenko? I guess I'm willing to test my hypotheses.

Jim

but all in all its a sacrificial lamb and nothing more.
an average L sunshade is also $50

"Kenko filters are the same as Hoyas."

Like a Toyota is to a Lexus.

"Is the B+W 3x better than the Kenko?"

3x's better? I don't know but money well spent? I do know. Minimum standard, my opinion, would be a HOYA S-HMC.

"so I ordered an 82mm Kenko Pro 1 Digital uv filter for $31."

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.

i've lived well by mine so far. the suffering hasn't been so bad.

here is one of my worst internal reflection shots

BeeMan458 wrote:
Like a Toyota is to a Lexus.


Interesting analogy, in more ways than one. I've been driving the top of the line Lexus since they first came out in 1989/90. I also have a Toyota. My current Lexus is about 3x as expensive as my Toyota.

I enjoy driving both cars. They both get the job done very nicely. In fact, there are many times when I prefer the Toyota to the Lexus. Do I think the Lexus is worth 3x as much as the Toyota? I can honestly say, No. Money well spent? Yes for both.

Jim

beeman your right i can get flare with my UV filter

It's a good thing that I see your above for the troll that it is. Wishing you well with your LED flashlight experiments.

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.

For a more complete description of the Hoya technology here is a link: http://hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/hoya-02.html

Jim

FYI,

I received a message fromhvstar. They will not be stocking the B+W 82mm MRC uv filter. They have the non-MRC version.

Jim