speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Sorry, I don't really get the point in your reply, are you saying Hoya filters are fake, or that other's are trying to sell cheap copies? I think fact is, Hoya is one of the filter manufacturers that does deliver on all fronts, their filters are certainly of very high quality, in all respects, glass used and precision in manufacturing. Tiffen as well does sell some good filters, but I don't think their quality is quite as high as Hoya's. B&W is called one of the top brands for a reason! There are many other's out there, making quality filters, but also some of the very cheap brands do sell cheap s***!

Arca

Hi Ted Liette,

I prefer Heliopan filters. They (as B and W) are made with brass rings so they will not get stuck to the lens or to each other or to adapter rings. Secondly, Heliopan filters are made from 'Schott' glass, the glass that Zeiss lenses are made from. Thirdly, they are laser cut from loaves of glass as opposed to being stamped out from a plate of glass. So the smoothness is non-pareil. They are usually much more expensive than Hoya's and Tiffens and more rare to locate. I use only Heliopans on my medium and large format cameras. My large format instructor, who is a M.F.A. recommended them most highly. I have never been let down with their quality, only their expense.

I have used Tiffen and Hoya filters in the past for my 35mm work and always found them to be satisfactory. I have nothing negative to say about them. I have never used a Singh-Ray filter so I have no comment about them.

If you are thinking about the Cokin or Lee systems of interchangeable filters in a standard holder, both Lee and Hi-Tech filters are quite good as well and with adaptors could fit all of your lenses.

But, if you are using a $2500 lens, do you really want to possibly sacrifice the image by saving money putting on a $50 filter? If I traveled any distance, like a vacation to a distant location, I would not want to take a chance. With my $2500 lens, I would use the $200 filter?

As I mentioned to a previous individual, there is nothing wrong with a Chevrolet. But it is simply not in the same league as a Rolls Royce. It is the same with filters, cameras, tripods, computers, shirts, ties and everything else. You usually get what you pay for.

I hope that this is helpful.

Arca

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I got a Marumi CPL I am pleased with...I think I paid like $80 for it. I'd never heard of them before, but he larger diameter filter was ranked 1st overall out of 25 models tested from several companies (B+W, Tiffen, several others) at lenstip.com.

Terra Australis Loc: Australia

Many of the high end Hoya filters on places like eBay are fake.
It is easy to verify them once you have them but it is usually too late by then.
Not also that cheap Chinese fakes are around for all the high end brands.

Oliver.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Don't waste your money on a UV filter. PERIOD.

Any brand.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I agree with the advice.

But just to note that there are many threads on UHH that discuss this and there are a number of people who feel very strongly that one should always keep a UV or clear filter on your lenses. I am of the "use the lens cap and hood" school but if anyone is interested in the passionate positions to use them (by others) you can probably find some of the threads by searching on something like "UV filters".

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^I just participated in one. ;)

Lens Cap, Hood, and proper precautions are MUCH better at protecting your lens than some cheap, thin piece of glass whose chief purpose is to degrade the light entering the lens, and that the people who engineered and designed your lens never accounted for being in the light path.

UV filters are a waste of money from EVERY respect. ;)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Just not true. A matter of fact it is so untrue as to be a lie.


Again, not true.
Some quality lenses are specifically designed to be used with a filter or glass protector screwed onto the front of the lens.
And virtually every lens has filter thread on the front so the lens makes DO expect you to put filters on the front. (Bulbous lenses excluded)


Another lie.
Cheap UV filters are crap.
Quality UV filters have no negative effect on your image.
A sacrificial UV filter has saved many a valuable lens from destruction.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I'll try to be more polite in responding to you than you were in your response to me. :roll:

Look up the meaning of the word FILTER. By definition, a UV filter... FILTERS, which in THIS application SPECIFICALLY, is a degradation of the light entering the front of the lens system.

And while I'm sure there are SOME (as you put it) lenses that are designed to be used with a filter in place in before the front or final element in a lens system... MOST ARE NOT. ESPECIALLY for UV filters which are totally unnecessary and redundant for modern digital imaging and therefore WOULD NOT be included in ANY design considerations*.

*Point of interest: IF a lens manufacturer wanted to add UV protection all they'd have to do is add another layer of coating to one or more of the elements. Doing so would NOT result in the introduction of extraneous diffraction, reflections, flare, and loss of contrast due to the addition of non-focusing glass elements in the light path.

As for the filter threads, well... it's all about trade-offs. Neutral Density and Polarizers also degrade the light going into the focusing system. That's what filters do... degrade the signal. In the case of Polarizers, ND, and other specialized filters (starburst, color, etc..) you are trading light degradation for a specific desired effect.

UV filters do NOT provide any specific effect because UV light is already filtered out by either the lens focusing system or the sensor itself.

And contrary to your earlier statement, ALL material in the light path between the subject and the image receptor diffracts that light. INCLUDING air... which IS accounted for in the design criteria. That cheap piece of glass however, is not, but even the highest quality UV filter is subject to the laws of physics/OPTICS, and negatively effects any image. This occurs REGARDLESS of how much you may think or wish that it doesn't.

Finally, the LEAST credible argument for installing a UV filter on an expensive lens is that the filter will somehow "protect" the front element from damage.

That is TOTALLY illogical, it takes a lot less force to scratch or shatter the thin glass of a filter than it does the thick, hard glass or plastic of a front element.

And while I loath to criticize any photographer for lens accidents, if you don't want kid fingerprints or dog slobber on your lenses, keep them away from kids and dogs. The rest of the stuff that a filter keeps off can be CLEANED off... an act that would HAVE to be carried out for the filter anyway.

WITHOUT degradation of the light path. ;)

So histrionics aside, UV filters really ARE a total waste of money. The ONLY purpose they serve is to fatten the accounts of filter manufacturers and retailers. PERIOD.

Use one if you like; just know that it does NOT provide any protection to your lens and it DOES degrade image quality.

breck Loc: Derbyshire UK

Surely a filter , by definition filters the light , and being glass slightly alters the light path it does not degrade it unless the filter glass is poor quality or dirty. Come to think of it I do not think it possible to degrade light, you can reduce its strength, and alter its path ,( IMHO)
As for protection a camera lens is a tool as such mine has been used in deserts jungles, by the sea and around darkest Derbyshire with wind rain and god knows what getting blown onto the front of my filter, I would rather scratch a £100 filter than my £1000 lens cleaning it , and that is possible however careful you are, take a look in Ebay at all the used lens with "just a small scratch" on the front element.
My humble tests show no difference in sharpness between a lens and one with a good filter on it

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:hunf:

You DO realize that what you described in your last sentence constitutes degradation don't you? :lol:




To each his or her own. We must all decide for ourselves what we think is best for our investments in this EXPENSIVE hobby/profession we are passionate about.

I can say for a fact that MY expensive UV filters do degrade image quality... as do the UV filters of the MAJORITY of the people in my photo club... a club I might add, that includes a pair of engineers, several Chemists and even a physicist who specializes in light transmission through fiber optics.

None of the 14 regular members use UV filters for any reason ANY more.

breck Loc: Derbyshire UK

deg·ra·da·tion noun \ˌde-grə-ˈdā-shən\
: the act or process of damaging or ruining something

: the act of treating someone or something poorly and without respect

Full Definition of DEGRADATION

1
: the act or process of degrading
2
a : decline to a low, destitute, or demoralized state
b : moral or intellectual decadence : degeneration
Reducing light intensity ( as in the case of a ND filter or changing the light path as in the case of a close up filter is not degrading light.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Ahhhh, you mean people who measure things to the 8th decimal place and consider changes at the molecular and atomic level even though there is no discernible difference to any printed image to the naked eye.

And none of them know the definition of degradation either?
That surprises me!

breck Loc: Derbyshire UK

Further testing not by me previously on nUHH by lighthouse

Thank you very much sueyeisert for linking this article in another thread.

I think the topic comes up so much that it deserves a thread of its own.


http://photographylife.com/filters-affect-resolution-lenses#more-59816

....Judging from the above case, using a high quality filter does not affect the resolving power of the lens at all. This is a good scientific proof for those that claim that all protective filters decrease resolution. Myth debunked......

.....Looks like using a cheap filter does indeed affect lens resolution. There is about a 10% drop in resolving power across the frame........

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

here you some examples for landscape
Graduated Neutral Density Filters
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/tip-of-the-week/graduated-neutral-density-filters.html