UV Filter Differences

[ejwebb]

I always keep UV filters on my lenses for protection and to keep the actual lens clean, except when using a polarizer. I currently use Canon and ProMaster filters that cost around $12 each. Considering the quality differences inherent in lenses and the price differences for uv filters by Hoya or b+w - does it make a huge difference which brand of uv filter is used?

You can see my lenses below which are all decent quality consumer lenses and not L's (I do recognize the difference just can't justify the expense - yet) so would I see a noticable difference in quality if I went with higher end uv filters?

[ssim]

When I started to amass my set of lenses I read some reviews and Hoya came out pretty much on top. So that is the way that I went.

I can honestly say that I haven't seen any Canon filters in the local retailers.

[samdring]

so would I see a noticable difference in quality if I went with higher end uv filters?

Don't know but easy for you to test. Take them off, if noticeable then there IS room for improvement

[ejwebb]

Good point - thought about that after I posted. I'll have to give it a try. I had seen others say they would not put cheap glass in front of expensive glass but if there is no discernable quality impact on the images the expensive filters seem to be a waste of money - at least for me - but I do want the best quality I can get from what I have. Granted, if I spent $1,500 for a lens I would probably put a $100 filter on it, too.

Thanks for your feedback.

[DaveG]

Good point - thought about that after I posted. I'll have to give it a try. I had seen others say they would not put cheap glass in front of expensive glass but if there is no discernable quality impact on the images the expensive filters seem to be a waste of money - at least for me - but I do want the best quality I can get from what I have. Granted, if I spent $1,500 for a lens I would probably put a $100 filter on it, too.

Thanks for your feedback.

The problem is that you can't tell a good filter from another by just looking at it.

As I wrote a couple of days ago I had a cheap filter on a 300mm f4.5 Nikkor lens. I'd use this lens along with a Nikkor 180mm ED lens and the difference in contrast was obvious just glancing at the negatives. I just assumed that this was the difference between the ED glass and the regular stuff.

Anyway I removed the filter one day and then the new negs were identical between the two lenses. There was a Nikon L37C filter, Nikon speak for a UV on the 180 the whole time. So I broke down and bought an L37C for the 300 and all was well. But looking at the Brank X filter that coused all the problems revealed no obvious cause. It looked fine and wasn't nearly as chewed as some of my Nikon filters were.

My suggestion is to get a really good filter, and Canon filters are really good, and not try to save a couple of bucks with the Toko filters of the world.

[ScottK]

Here's a non-scientific comparison that shows there is at least some difference, in some situations:

http://www.michaeltapes.com/Pages/PhotoTechPages/MultiCoatedFilters.html

But even the non-coated Hoya shows as an improvement over the Tiffen, so there's probably more "wiggle" room to choose a "better" filter, and not just the best or the worst.

[DocFrankenstein]

I've put the Hoya UV(0) multicoated on my 70-200. Bought it at the same time as the lens so they gave me a discount. I don't notice any quality loss when I remove it.

With the kit lens I just didn't bother. Even if it's scratches - no biggie. :roll: