Any reason to try BW filters over Hoya?

i sold my hoya and got b+w and heliopan filters. i'm glad i made the change. better build and easier to clean. worth the expense, to me.

Hoya Pro1 Digital is a pretty good filter for the money. I found my B+W XS-Pro's are easier to clean though. But as far as IQ, I've only had it diminish with the cheaper filters like TianYa or whatever the name they call it on eBay.
Other than that, even my $20 Tiffen filter worked well with 70-200L. I found brass to be a preferred choice.

The biggest reason to avoid Hoya CPs is the occasional tendency to fall apart!
4 users complain of this problem in this thread
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10037​48

Another reason to avoid Hoya CPs is that they didn't score very well in this test
http://www.lenstip.com …arizing_filters​_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com …Hoya_HD_CIR-PL_72_mm.html

By comparison the Hoya filters performed quite well in a corresponding UV filter test
http://www.lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html

Wilt wrote in post #12476607
But 2filter.com had a falling out with Hoya and no longer carries that brand of filter

Do you know over what? 2filter has such a great reputation.

Take some sage advice from a 72 year old: IF IT AIN'T BROKE, WHY FIX IT?

MGW172 wrote in post #12484279
Do you know over what? 2filter has such a great reputation.

Per background info provided by 2filter, Hoya wanted 2filter to sign an agreement stating that they would not sell the Hoya filters below a manufacturer-specified floor price, but 2filter would not agree to that. So in spite of 2filter having solds hundreds of thousands of dollars in Hoya filters each year (per 2filter statements), Hoya cut them off.

Dustman wrote in post #12477238
I use ''Hoya Clear Pro 1 Digital Multi Coated'' Filters on all my lenses, and have zero complaints, soooooo easy to clean...............I would suggest to anyone, if you don't have an issue with your filter, there is no reason to change brands, if you get a new lens or a filter breaks, then by all means, try out a new brand. Both are good brands in my opinion

+1 on the Hoya Clear Pro 1 DMC Filters

Dunno... Got only Zeiss and B+W filters. No plastics there. My ideology is to buy the best, even if it makes me pay more, eh... Never had to exchange anything that I purchase for something better. Comes cheaper in the long run. Got a friend that buys cheap and then buys better and more expensive stuff time after time. Said once that he should just buy the best he can afford, gets cheaper in time...

Mike K wrote in post #12483233
The biggest reason to avoid Hoya CPs is the occasional tendency to fall apart!
4 users complain of this problem in this thread
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10037​48

Another reason to avoid Hoya CPs is that they didn't score very well in this test
http://www.lenstip.com …arizing_filters​_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com …Hoya_HD_CIR-PL_72_mm.html

By comparison the Hoya filters performed quite well in a corresponding UV filter test
http://www.lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html

Add me to the list. Never again will I purchase a Hoya.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12472102
Perhaps, but are there any advantages to aluminum over brass as used here? I can't think of any.

Even foregoing stacking - Brass, sometimes advantageous. Aluminum, never advantageous?

The plus of brass is that it has 'built in' lubrication - the softer constituents rub off to fill micro uneven thread surfaces. But this only works if the brass itself is exposed (not coated).

The plus of aluminum is that when installed onto aluminum, it will expand and contract at the same rate.

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16079654
The plus of brass is that it has 'built in' lubrication - the softer constituents rub off to fill micro uneven thread surfaces. But this only works if the brass itself is exposed (not coated).

The plus of aluminum is that when installed onto aluminum, it will expand and contract at the same rate.

Yeah, and the negative of aluminum-to-aluminum is that there is some level of self adhesion. I'll leave it to the metallurgists to explain that, and to explain what effect of anodizing has on adhesion.

it is a fact of materials science that the aluminum-aluminum mechanical connection binds to itself to a greater degree, whereas a brass-aluminum mechanical connection is to a degree self lubricating. It has little to do with overtightening the filter!...I have Olympus lenses with aluminum ring filters which I had deliberately NOT tightened down because I know better, yet today after sitting unused in my camera bag, the filter is bound rather firmly in the Olympus lens and I have to buy filter removal tool to get them off.

I think he was referring to "galling," the reason for which aluminum/aluminum is particularly difficult to use for a screw-in filter application. A $5 investment in filter wrenches would be a good idea if you have somehow convinced yourself that aluminum has any over-riding advantage as a filter ring material.

(Actually, filter wrenches aren't a bad investment regardless. It doesn't take much more than snug to get ANY filter ring material to bind or at least be unruly given filters have such little surface area for our fingers to find purchase. (Waited 15 years to use "purchase" that way. Allow me to relish it.))

Don't replace what aint broken. It's a different issue if having bad filters.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #16079752
I think he was referring to "galling," the reason for which aluminum/aluminum is particularly difficult to use for a screw-in filter application.

From Wikipedia

"Galling is a form of wear caused by adhesion between sliding surfaces. When a material galls, some of it is pulled with the contacting surface, especially if there is a large amount of force compressing the surfaces together. Galling is caused by a combination of friction and adhesion between the surfaces, followed by slipping and tearing of crystal structure beneath the surface. This will generally leave some material stuck or even friction welded to the adjacent surface, while the galled material may appear gouged with balled-up or torn lumps of material stuck to its surface.
Galling is most commonly found in metal surfaces that are in sliding contact with each other. It is especially common where there is inadequate lubrication between the surfaces. However, certain metals will generally be more prone to galling, due to the atomic stucture of their crystals. For example, aluminum is a metal which will gall very easily, whereas annealed (softened) steel is slightly more resistant to galling. Steel that is fully hardened is very resistant to galling.
"Galling is a common problem in most applications where metals slide while in contact with other metals. This can happen regardless of whether the metals are the same or of different kinds. Metals such as brass are often chosen for bearings, bushings, and other sliding applications because of their resisitance to galling, as well as other forms of mechanical abrasion."

While 'galling' is applicable particularly when there is force applied to the mating surfaces, what I was referring to was not even in the presence of any force...which is why I related the example of my Olympus lenses with aluminum filters. I had removed the filters to clean the optical surfaces, and had very GENTLY put the filters back on the lenses intentionally...and after some some years of lack of use, I found the filters nevertheless 'stuck' on the lens. Which probably is explained by the statement in green.

Given the decreasing frequency with which modern lens barrels have any metal, with composites now often use, the aluminums-to-aluminum bonding that I have experienced with Olympus OM lenses and aluminum ringed filters would be largely no longer a consideration.

I use a Hoya HD protector on my 70-200 2.8 IS II and have never had any issue with it binding or being hard to take off. They quality of the Hoya HD is outstanding and has no detrimental effects to image quality in my opinion.

Just bought another Hoya HD protector for my 24-70 2.8 II