Multicoated filtrs... is it all hype?

[Photolistic]

What about the $200 HMC circular polarizer filters? Thats a lot of money!

[Wilt]

Read this thread

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2594799#post2594799

[Photolistic]

You explained it well... thanks.

[Jon]

No, it's not hype. At every interface between two materials of dissimilar index of refraction you'll get some reflection. This means there's some light lost at every air-glass interfacxe in an optical system. Coating a lens (or filter) creates layers of just the right thickness to reflect some wavelengths of light back to the lens or filter so they get a second chance to go through. Multicoating builds a "stack" of these layers so essentially all visible lilght is forced through. Because they're so thin, they don't affect the optical performance of the lens, but the result is that a coated lens will transmit more light than an uncoated one. The finest multicoated filters will transmit up to 99+% of all incident light as compared to on the order of 93% for uncoated filters. In addition, since the light isn't reflected, it isn't available to get bounced off of other surfaces and cause lens flare.

[Photolistic]

k them. Good thing all my filters are HMC.

[canonloader]

What about the $200 HMC circular polarizer filters? Thats a lot of money!
Get the one from Canon. B&H has them for $124 and they work fine.

But no, it's not hype. the cheap ones are crap and give crappy images.

[Wilt]

With all due respect, canonloader, the Canon filters are made for them are are lower quality (note their price vs. the dedicated filter manufacturers prices)

[rhys]

I have ProMaster uncoated filters. They're OK as long as there's no oblique light source. I get reflections off the back in long exposures too. I bunged some UV filters on to protect my glass but my selection was limited to ProMaster or Tiffin. Both are fairly horrible brands. I'll have to order online in which case I'll probably go for B+W or Kasemann. I won't do that though until I have upgraded to my perfect lens lineup.

[Jon]

Get the one from Canon. B&H has them for $124 and they work fine.

But no, it's not hype. the cheap ones are crap and give crappy images.
Canon filters are, I believe, made by Tiffen, not one of the first-tier brands. B+W MRC, Heliopan or Hoya SHMC are the better quality ones.

[Wilt]

... I'll probably go for B+W or Kasemann.

'Kasemann' is a type of polarizer, not a brand. If you expect to shoot in very wet humid locations, Kasemenn have sealed edges. Not sure if I would consider SC wet and humid (enough)...maybe so!

[canonloader]

With all due respect, canonloader, the Canon filters are made for them are are lower quality (note their price vs. the dedicated filter manufacturers prices)
Yes, all I said was they work fine and are way cheaper than $200.

[Photolistic]

I found this on ebay for $66

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=019&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&viewitem=&item=290071651502&rd=1&rd=1

[EdV]

I have ProMaster uncoated filters. They're OK as long as there's no oblique light source. I get reflections off the back in long exposures too. I bunged some UV filters on to protect my glass but my selection was limited to ProMaster or Tiffin. Both are fairly horrible brands. I'll have to order online in which case I'll probably go for B+W or Kasemann. I won't do that though until I have upgraded to my perfect lens lineup.

My filters are Promaster Digital Filters with Digital Anti-Reflection Multi Coating. I just bought a 77mm UV filter for my Sigma 10-20mm and it cost $80.00 at my local camera shop. They tell me, and I do trust them, that the Promaster Digital Filters are the same as (made by?) Hoya. All I can say is that I've been satisfied with them.

[deadpass]

there have been other threads about that ebay store, it seems like they are selling legit stuff, there are many people on here that have ordered from them and been happy with the product.

[Photolistic]

there have been other threads about that ebay store, it seems like they are selling legit stuff, there are many people on here that have ordered from them and been happy with the product.

I know.... the prices are crazy cheap!

[Steiglitz]

I would just as soon keep filters off my lenses unless I need a polarizer, or ND-grad, or other functioning filter....my hoodies protect my lensky's! ;-) So from my point of view, multi-coated filters smilters are gimmicks.

[steved110]

What about the $200 HMC circular polarizer filters? Thats a lot of money!

All good CPs are pretty costly. Have a look at some of the ebay Hong Kong based sellers, they are often about half price or better than UK proces anyway. Just choose someone with good feedback - several thousand, preferably 99% positive and above.

Is multi coating a hype? I don't think so! All my filters since I went digital, are multi coated, it's supposed to reduce flare. I don't feel bothered by flare much except on my 30 1.4 - and that's a lens characteristic that i simply have to work around.

[Tee Why]

Hmmm,
Does anyone have same shots taken with a cheap and a multicoated CPL so we can actually see the difference? Or are we all armchair quarterbacking this issue?

I'd really like to see some shots of the difference.

[deadpass]

I know there was a post on here somewhere that somone took the same pics with and without a UV filter and the UV filter really killed the sharpness. I think it was on a 70-300 @300mm, but I can't say for sure.

[bowlesbe]

Say you wanted a 77mm polarizer and clear filter for the 17-55mm. What would you buy?

[Photolistic]

This for $63

http://cgi.ebay.com/HOYA-77mm-PRO1-DIGITAL-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-DMC_W0QQitemZ290075005488QQihZ019QQcategoryZ15217Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item290075005488

[bowlesbe]

holy ****... 1/3 the price of http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=391185&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

[Choderboy]

Hmmm,
Does anyone have same shots taken with a cheap and a multicoated CPL so we can actually see the difference? Or are we all armchair quarterbacking this issue?

I'd really like to see some shots of the difference.

You can take the CPL out of the equation - any cheap filter should be capable of ruining photos.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209459&highlight=scratchy

You may be lucky and take hundreds of photos without this effect. Sooner or later the cheapies get you though.

[JohnJ80]

Hmmm,
Does anyone have same shots taken with a cheap and a multicoated CPL so we can actually see the difference? Or are we all armchair quarterbacking this issue?

I'd really like to see some shots of the difference.


UV and CP Filter tests (http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1)

Not my test, but an excellent example. No way, no how do you want non MRC coated filters. Period. Unless, of course, you like flare.

J.

[canonloader]

You can take the CPL out of the equation - any cheap filter should be capable of ruining photos.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209459&highlight=scratchy

You may be lucky and take hundreds of photos without this effect. Sooner or later the cheapies get you though.
I've looked all over for an old thread I posted in. I was getting those diagonal lines in my bokeh and didn't know what it was. We traced it to the filter I was using. When I got the Canon CP, it went away, or didn't happen with no filter. I also had to take off the cheapo UV filters I left on my other lenses.

[Choderboy]

I've looked all over for an old thread I posted in. I was getting those diagonal lines in my bokeh and didn't know what it was. We traced it to the filter I was using. When I got the Canon CP, it went away, or didn't happen with no filter. I also had to take off the cheapo UV filters I left on my other lenses.

LOL! I gave up looking for the examples I posted.

At some point I claimed this was a Hoya Pro 1 UV filter (I think)
In fact this was Canon brand "sharp cut" UV filter. (Made by Tiffen apparently)
I have yet to have this bad effect using Hoya Pro1s. The Canon filter became a frisbee!

here's a good example:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=218003&highlight=filter

Here was my ignorant slander against hoya (sorry hoya , you took the wrap for canon)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=218003&page=4&highlight=filter

I still can't find my example...

[Choderboy]

This for $63

http://cgi.ebay.com/HOYA-77mm-PRO1-DIGITAL-Circular-Polarizer-Filter-DMC_W0QQitemZ290075005488QQihZ019QQcategoryZ15217Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item290075005488

That talks about a CPL. The photo does not look like a CPL though.
Seems a bit dubious...:confused:

[Photolistic]

Whats CPL?

[Choderboy]

Whats CPL?

Circular polariser.
The filter in the photo has "protector" printed on it - I think that's a clear filter (not CPL , UV . skylight etc)

Ok , here is my example of bad effect of a filter:

Full Pic:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=112238&stc=1&d=1159175400

Crop:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=112239&stc=1&d=1159175458

[Tee Why]

UV and CP Filter tests (http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1)

Not my test, but an excellent example. No way, no how do you want non MRC coated filters. Period. Unless, of course, you like flare.

J.
I've seen that link before, but unless you like shooting a tissue box while a table lamp is aimed at the lens, I'm not sure how it applies to real world photos. I'd like to see the CPL's tested in a normal manner where cpl's are used, to cut glare off water, darken skies. I've never used a cpl indoors.

All UV filters increase flare, I don't even question that. It's a matter of degree, even the more expensive Hoya multicoated one degrades contrast and increases (not induce) flare as well. I think the OP asked about CPL's not UV btw.

[Photolistic]

What does the L stand for in CPL?

[Choderboy]

What does the L stand for in CPL?


PoLariser! (Im assuming)

[JohnJ80]

I've seen that link before, but unless you like shooting a tissue box while a table lamp is aimed at the lens, I'm not sure how it applies to real world photos. I'd like to see the CPL's tested in a normal manner where cpl's are used, to cut glare off water, darken skies. I've never used a cpl indoors.

All UV filters increase flare, I don't even question that. It's a matter of degree, even the more expensive Hoya multicoated one degrades contrast and increases (not induce) flare as well. I think the OP asked about CPL's not UV btw.

the point of the link provided was to show the benefit of coated vs uncoated filters. was that or my accompanying comment not clear? Also, does this not illustrate the reflective and flare issues and how they are minimized with coating?

J.

[huhging]

Nobody mentions the brand name "Kenko" for multicoated filters.
I bought those because it was recommend from the local camera shop.

Did I get junky ones compared to B&W and Hoya?

[Tom W]

Time to show my cheap filter comparison. This was a quick test, taken in a worst-case scenario - there's a bright light just barely out of frame to the left of the image that strikes the front of the lens, but is outside of the image. The purpose was to induce as much flare as possible, and it worked. Pretty bad flare even unfiltered.

Here's the first shot, without filter:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521573/large.jpg


Now, with a cheap, low-cost UV filter installed (notice how the entire image contrast suffers, plus the added flare images in the scene):

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521574/large.jpg


Finally, with a good-quality multi-coated filter (HMC, if I recall) - much closer to the original unfiltered image:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/39521575/large.jpg

[Tee Why]

So once again, does anyone have same real world shots taken with a non/single coated vs Multicoated CPL (not UV) filter?

I don't know how the UV filter discussion got started here as the OP was asking about multicoated CPL's.
Multicoating for UV filters is not hype in my view. But even a good multicoated UV filter can increase flare.
However, I've not seen any good tests, images with cpl's to make a decision for me.

[Tom W]

However, I've not seen any good tests, images with cpl's to make a decision for me.


Probably because buying multiple CPL filters simply for comparison is a bit expensive.
Do you have any information as to why a CPL filter might react differently? Does the polarization reduce the filter's effects on flare (it possibly could)?

[canonloader]

So once again, does anyone have same real world shots taken with a non/single coated vs Multicoated CPL (not UV) filter?
Did you see the bat pictures in Post #29? See the diagonal lines in the far background out of focus spots? Thats what the cheapo CP does and the Canon brand CP I bought to replace it, eliminates that. I just can't find my own images that, [if I recall correctly] were posted in the same thread with those bats.

[poah]

recently bought a hoya Pro1 digital CP for my 10-22 and I tested it against a normal hoya HMC, a kood cokin P CP, HMC UV, S-HMC UV and no filter at all. from a sharpness point of veiw there is nothing lost between them with a tiny loss of sharpness between CP and nofilter/UV. all taken at the same focus point and levels + smart sharpning from a converted RAW file (white balance) what I did notice is that with the CP's on the camera underexposed by around 1/3. ignore any contrast, colour difference as I did not do the test under strict lighting conditions. taken with 24-105 L 105mm f5.6

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8139/filtertest9yi.jpg

[Tee Why]

Probably because buying multiple CPL filters simply for comparison is a bit expensive.
Do you have any information as to why a CPL filter might react differently? Does the polarization reduce the filter's effects on flare (it possibly could)?
Don't know about that one, there are many folks that test out lenses that cost several hundred dollars or more here.

[Tee Why]

Did you see the bat pictures in Post #29? See the diagonal lines in the far background out of focus spots? Thats what the cheapo CP does and the Canon brand CP I bought to replace it, eliminates that. I just can't find my own images that, [if I recall correctly] were posted in the same thread with those bats.

I think the poster on post 29 states that it says protector on the filter and may not be a CPL. Also, if you don't take another shot with a Multicoated filter (CPL), then how do you know it's not due to some other factor than the coating?

[Tee Why]

recently bought a hoya Pro1 digital CP for my 10-22 and I tested it against a normal hoya HMC, a kood cokin P CP, HMC UV, S-HMC UV and no filter at all. from a sharpness point of veiw there is nothing lost between them with a tiny loss of sharpness between CP and nofilter/UV. all taken at the same focus point and levels + smart sharpning from a converted RAW file (white balance) what I did notice is that with the CP's on the camera underexposed by around 1/3. ignore any contrast, colour difference as I did not do the test under strict lighting conditions. taken with 24-105 L 105mm f5.6

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8139/filtertest9yi.jpg
wow, images finally, thanks for posting them. I sure would like to see how the three CPL's look outside in a landscape type shots where they are often used.
I think from looking at the word "cool", the Cokin is a touch sharper. I'm not sure if this maybe due to some other factors though. I'd also like to see some shots out door for any difference in color and contrast as well.
I'm not sure if there would be much flare from using CPL, regardless of coating, since cpl's block light not traveling in the specific plane.

As for sharpness, I don't think filters make any significant difference. I do believe that UV filters increase flare when shooting into a strong light source/high contrast scenes, multicoated to a lesser degree. I've not seen such comparisons for cpl's though.

[Tom W]

Don't know about that one, there are many folks that test out lenses that cost several hundred dollars or more here.

True, but I'm not sure how many will buy them solely for testing. I've bought lenses and tested/compared them to my previous lenses before selling the old one, but I've never considered trading up with CPL filters.

Once I get moved, I'll dig in my stuff and see if I even have both types of CPL (can't do it now - accessories are packed in storage). Problem is, if I do, odds are that they are different sizes and thus can't be compared on the same lens - unless I get a step-up ring. The only step ring I know that have is for using a 77 mm on a 72 mm lens.

[Tee Why]

I'm hoping poah will post more samples with various cpl's he has.

[Choderboy]

It should benefit at least someone to know:

It's been 2 and a half years since I threw that crappy Canon filter in the bin.
Never had that "scratchy" effect since.
(see post # 29)

[Wilt]

http://www.kenandchristine.com/Other/Equipment-Tests/Filter-Tests/1054387_ucZqa/2

This test was for both UV filters and for polarizers! The latter half is polarizers.

[Terjay]

Here's one in Finnish http://www.teknofokus.fi/Foto/suokoe.htm
The latter sequence goes from no filter to simpler filters to a multicoated.