B&W or Hoya filter for 70-200 2.8IS?

[clkgtr37]

Time has come to protect my new lens, so if you could give me any suggestions as to which one to buy, I would be very appreciative. I was going to purchase the B&W, but they are out of stock, so my real question is should I buy the Hoya now, or is the B&W that much better. I am just buying the UV Protective filter, so the only thing I want is for the filter to not hurt my pictures, will both do this, or does one have a huge atvantage?
Thank you again,
Blair

[Cal Maier]

Gee Blair, I have to say go with the B+W, it's a bit more money but if your going to use a UV filter for protection and you won't be removing it every time you want to take a photo, then the B+W is the only filter that I would consider using. IMHO it's pretty hard to beat Schneider optics. If you go with the Hoya then you may as well take your photos through a window. I know that sounds a little harsh, but why would you spend all that money on one of the best zoom lenses available and try to save a few bucks on the filter?

Cal

[clkgtr37]

Not to in any way critisize your post, but is Hoya really that bad? I just dont see how a clear protective filter could be that harmful to the quality of such a great lens. But for I will note your opinion when tomorrow comes and I have to decide to to buy the Hoya or order the B&W.

[jdavis]

The HOYA Super HMC Pro 1 UVs are excellent filters.

I found that Delta International sells them at good prices.

John

[Cal Maier]

Well Blair, to tell you the truth I don't shoot with filters, other than the odd filter for effect, say a circ.polarizer, or a colored filter for b+w shots(oops! did I say the F(film) word?) I believe that anything you put in front of your lens will affect the photo somehow, even a clear piece of glass, so if I did put a filter on the front of my lens I would want the one that would have the least adverse affect. B+W is one of the best, Sailwind is another, Hoya is well known but I don't believe it to be the same grade of glass that B+W is - there is a saying - "You get what you pay for!" - this is true when it comes to cameras, lenses, and I'm pretty sure it would apply to filters also.

I protect my lenses (Canon L series) by using the lens cap and the lens shade that is supplied with the lens. I believe the lens shade offers excellent protection for the front element when the lens cap is removed and I believe it would be very difficult for something to scratch the element with the shade mounted. The lens shade also acts as a bit of a shock absorber if the lens is bumped or heaven forbid dropped,

Anyway, It's your money and your decision in the end, so I wish you luck and good shooting.

Cal

[Rudi]

jdavis wrote:

The HOYA Super HMC Pro 1 UVs are excellent filters.




I'd second that recommendation. Great filters at a very good price!

[psvnyc]

Well, I have to admit that the filter question has been a concern for me, especially when it goes in front of a top quality lens. Is there a comparative study out there? Has anybody done any extensive testing that shows the effect of a UV filter in front of a top-notch lens?

[reittila]

clkgtr37 wrote:
Not to in any way critisize your post, but is Hoya really that bad? I just dont see how a clear protective filter could be that harmful to the quality of such a great lens. But for I will note your opinion when tomorrow comes and I have to decide to to buy the Hoya or order the B&W.
Well trying to put it in a few words; making a good lens is difficult no matter what it does. A filter is a lens or to be more precise an optical element as all the othe lenses in your zoom.
The lenses are made to effect light with a certain purpose so are the filters but with different purpose.
At the end a lens or a filter is good if you cant see it's there but it's bad if you see it'sunwanted effect(s).
There you can make diference between B&W and Hoya.
Personally I use only the best (with less unwanted effects) like B&W.

[Pekka]

To evaluate filters put them on and see if the result you get through viewfinder is what you need and require. If you can see a difference then you have to decide which is the preferable difference.

Also, check how easy or hard it is to attach and detach a filter - some models seem to lock in too hard and some are very easy to put on/off.

I personally did not like Hoya's circular polarizer much as it gave blues images a slightly "muddy" look - quite different to B+W I got the next day. B+W has also some different metal in the ring which makes it almost impossible to get stuck in - it opens and closes very gently.

Then again, I have used Canon's protective filters on all my lenses and have no complaints about them. Would be interesting to compare them to B+W. Coating can matter a lot in some situations.

[iamhives]

I third this recommendation. I have them on allof my lenses (after much research)

[droosan]

If you have to use a filter, use B+W MRC. You have to hold these filters in your hand next to a Hoya to see the difference, but then see it you will. As you roll pan the B+W MRC filter side to side, for the middle 90 degrees or so of the pan, IT DOES NOT REFLECT. You have to see it to believe it. You cannot see the glass of the filter.

The silliest thing I see is when a photographer has a "look how big mine is" lens with a dirty scratched $19 skylight in front of it.

Oh, and B+W filters are brass so they don't stick on you lens.

But I agree with the above posters, get a hood before you get a filter for protection. Make sure too you get a hood which is designed for your lens, a hard one, not one of the floppy rubber ones.

Use a filter to improve the picture. For example a B+W MRC Krausemann(?) Circular Polarizer, or ND.

[T a z]

The question of whether or not to use a filter for protection is, of course, a matter of preference. The physics of whether or not light rays are affected when passing through them is not. Light rays passing through any substance (even a pourous gas) are affected to some degree.

The less dense a material is (all other things being equal), the less affect it has on the light rays passing through it. The Hoya Super HMC Pro series are 1mm thick, while I understand the thinnest B&W filters are 2mm thick. Granted, different manufacturers may use different coatings, but overall, a material's density will have the greatest affect.

Both manufacturers make great filters...and most of the time for most images there will be absolutely no discernable difference between the two. Still, even if it is for more of a psychological edge than anything else, we all like to wring out the best possible performance out of our equipment. In this case, short of using no filter which would provide the ultimate in fidelity, I'd go with the Hoya.

[droosan]

I respectfully disagree.

The portion of the path that light travels from the subject to the capture plan which has the greatest negative affect on the fidelity of the image, is not the journey through glass, but the boundaries between different media, especially the boundary between air and glass. In fact light travels more truly through modern lens glass than it does through normal air.

A glass surface, however carefully ground, is not perfectly flat at the microscopic, much less molecular, level. This means that a portion of the light that falls on the glass surface doesn't continue on its proper path through the glass but bounces off at odd angles, causing the reflection that you see when you when you look at a window pane at an angle.

So to fill up these hills and valleys in the glass surface lens and filters manufacturers apply coatings of various materials. Different manufacturers apply different substances in differing quantities and call them different things but the goal is the same: to reduce the light that sprays off the glass surface in all directions at the glass-air boundary, and cause this light instead to continue on its proper path through the glass on toward the capture plane.

Hence, the low-tech way to judge the quality of a filter is to look at it. If you can get a reflection off the surface of the filter as you pan it, that is the light spray described above.

Any decent multicoated filter from any manufacturer will show almost no reflection when you look straight through it. However, I personally have never seen filters to compare with B+W MRC filters. When you look straight though it the filter isn't there, and you have to look at it at an extreme angle to get any kind of reflection off the surface at all.

[Rudi]

droosan wrote:
The portion of the path that light travels from the subject to the capture plan which has the greatest negative affect on the fidelity of the image, is not the journey through glass, but the boundaries between different media, especially the boundary between air and glass. In fact light travels more truly through modern lens glass than it does through normal air.


Agreed. In fact, that is how lenses work. It's the refraction of light at the surface of the glass that makes the lens work as designed.

droosan wrote:
A glass surface however carefully ground is not perfectly flat at the microscopic, much less molecular, level. This means that a portion of the light that falls on the glass surface doesn't continue on its proper path through the glass but bounces off at odd angles, causing the reflection that you see when you when you look at a window pane at an angle.


I disagree. Of course, the glass can never be perfectly flat, but polishing optical glass so that it's accurate to 1/4 of the wavelength of light, and thus "diffraction limited", is not a big problem these days. The reflection you see from a glass surface is not due to the imperfect surface, it would still be there even if the surface was perfectly flat. That's what glass does. It reflects a small proportion of light.

droosan wrote:
So to fill up these hills and valleys in the glass surface lens and filters manufacturer apply coatings of various materials. Different manufacturers apply different substances in differing quantities and call them different things but the goal is the same: to reduce the light that sprays off the glass surface in all directions at the glass-air boundary, and cause this light instead to continue on its proper path through the glass on toward the capture plane.


Nope! Optical coatings are not there to improve the figure of the optics, they're there to reduce the reflection, and improve the "light throughput" of the glass. Some coatings can actually hurt the optical figure, if not applied correctly.

droosan wrote:
Hence, the low-tech way to judge the quality of a filter is to look at it. If you can get a reflection off the surface of the filter as you pan it, that is the light spray described above.


Agreed!

[droosan]

Rudi
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

You: "... glass can never be perfectly flat, (diffraction)... is not a big problem these days..."
My view: It's not a big problem anymore because lens elements are much better coated.

Without coating, even a 'perfectly' ground glass surface will reflect (spray) about 5% of the light. A typical modern lens with only 5 element groups means 10 boundaries. Without coating only about 60% (95% to the power of 10) of the light reaching the front of the lens would reach the capture plane. With modern coatings, they do much much better.



I said: "... the goal is the same: to reduce the light that sprays off the glass surface in all directions at the glass-air boundary, and cause this light instead to continue on its proper path through the glass on toward the capture plane."
You said: "...they're there to reduce the reflection, and improve the "light throughput..." of the glass..."
Here, as far as I can tell, we are saying exactly the same thing.

[anthonysams]

Just a quick note. Buy the cheapest filter you can, and when you are ready to shoot take it off. there is no sense in spending $1200.00 on a lens and then putting on a $100.00 filter. The whole point of the 70-200 2.8 is the sharpness and CONTRAST. You will risk losing this by using filters to shoot.
T.

[Rudi]

anthonysams wrote:
Buy the cheapest filter you can, and when you are ready to shoot take it off.


Why buy a filter at all, then? A lens cap is already supplied with the lens, and is much quicker and easier to take off...

...but it still won't protect your lens when you actually shoot. :)

[T a z]

droosan wrote:
I respectfully disagree.


droosan:

In general, I agree with your disagreement :) on the factors you mentioned. However, I added the qualifier of "all other things being equal". What I was trying to get at was that if all the other factors are held constant, a thicker substance (such as glass) will have a greater affect on light waves than a thinner piece of glass. The light wave has a shorter distance to travel and encounters fewer atoms that can cause that path to be altered.

Now...granted, not all factors can be held equal in the real world...especially, as you pointed out, when it comes to coatings. I agree here that some manufacturer's coatings on some of their lines of filters can have very big and detrimental effect. But in this case, we're talking about MRC coatings from the very best that Hoya and B+W have to offer. The two coatings are very, very similar. While, as you point out, not a scientific test, you can look at both filters under the light and you will not see any difference (at least not to these old eyes anyway). A greater affect, therefore, will come fom the thickness of glass used. The difference between 1mm and 2mm is huge when it comes to light wavelengths.

By the way, the next time you have an opportunity, ask a Canon rep about who provides their coatings for their lenses. You shouldn't be surprised when he tells you, Hoya.

Don't get me wrong...I think B+W makes some outstanding filters, but when it comes to putting something in front of something like an L lens, I'll opt for the thinner one. Now, if I REALLY wanted the absolute best the lens is capable of, I'd use it in its naked form...but I've decided that the small (if any) degredation that I'd see is worth it in order to provide a little protection.

[Stirfried]

The light actually diffused less inside the filter than in air. In addition, a thicker filter is likely to be flatter overall (and be less affected by factors such as how tightly its screwed in).
A thinner filter would be better at higher incidence (i.e. further from the normal) but since we're using our lens hoods we're limited to about +/- 30degrees so it doesn't matter.
I know that it seems thinner glass would be better, but that comes from our daily experience with non-optical glass.

As for surface reflections, they're not connected to roughness. The ~5% reflection is a property of going from one refractive index material to another. Anti-reflective coatings typically can reduce this to about 1% (or less if designed for a single wavelength).

Where does this leave us? With exactly the kind of bickering argument photographers love to have!
Can I complain about Canon not including a lens hood with the 70-200mm now?

[MrSiki99]

I am surprised no one has suggested Rodenstock filters. They are about $100-200 a pop, but are slim, brass ringed, and are very well built. Had one on my 135 F2. Great filters.

[jrsforums]

Can I complain about Canon not including a lens hood with the 70-200mm now?

You could...except I believe Canon includes lens hoods with the 'L' 70-200's...at least I got them with mine...in USA, but don't remember if they were Canon USA or grey market imports (B&H).

[Hoesi]

The Hoya HMC Super are excellent filters. I would recommend that you go read some tests/comparisons instead of listening to ignorant comments such as "If you go with the Hoya then you may as well take your photos through a window.". (No offence intended.)

[rgfrison]

I own both the hoya super HMC pro1 and the b+w mrc f-pro and will likely buy another b+w soon. It is really up to you and what you like better, they are both high quality filters. hvstar.com has great filter prices, and you will see these are the most popular 2 uvs they sell.

[Cyclop]

I am sure everyone has their own preference/reasons for purchase of the various lens-filters out on the market. I have the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens. My personal preference for filters, I use B+W UV/Haze 010 (MRC) F-Pro Filters on all of my glass. B+W, as well as Heliopan brands are both excellent, quality german filters that you may want to consider for placement on such an expensive lens.

[Jon]

Guys - anybody looked at the original date on this thread?

[Balliolman]

B+W = top quality and if you shop around can be got at a price that shouldn't break the bank!

LOL! just noted the date! But the above still holds true! :)

[Hoesi]

Guys - anybody looked at the original date on this thread?

Nope, haha. Blame Stirfried! :lol: