Any reason to try BW filters over Hoya?

Hoya Pro1 Digital UV is $60! Is that really worth it to protect my lens? Over a $10 ebay filter I mean?

I've used S&W from ebay before and they seem perfectly fine to me..
http://www.ebay.com …_trksid=p3984.m​1438.l2649

edit: this is the reason I bought the S&W the first time. Does not seem to be any difference between them. Think I'll keep the extra $50..
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest1
This is of course only for UV filters. For ND or polarizers there may be differences.

ObiDamnKenobi wrote in post #16090568
Hoya Pro1 Digital UV is $60! Is that really worth it to protect my lens? Over a $10 ebay filter I mean?

I've used S&W from ebay before and they seem perfectly fine to me..
http://www.ebay.com …_trksid=p3984.m​1438.l2649

Yes. Multicoating helps cut down flare and internal reflections, and optically pure and optically flat glass minimizes distortions. Cheap filters are worse than no filters for any intended uses.

On a lighter note, from what I know, you should not be trying BW filters over Hoya. You should just try the BW filters

ObiDamnKenobi wrote in post #16090568
Hoya Pro1 Digital UV is $60! Is that really worth it to protect my lens? Over a $10 ebay filter I mean?

I've used S&W from ebay before and they seem perfectly fine to me..
http://www.ebay.com …_trksid=p3984.m​1438.l2649

edit: this is the reason I bought the S&W the first time. Does not seem to be any difference between them. Think I'll keep the extra $50..
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest1
This is of course only for UV filters. For ND or polarizers there may be differences.

Putting worthless glass in front of your lens isn't good

ObiDamnKenobi wrote in post #16090568
Hoya Pro1 Digital UV is $60! Is that really worth it to protect my lens? Over a $10 ebay filter I mean?

I've used S&W from ebay before and they seem perfectly fine to me..
http://www.ebay.com …_trksid=p3984.m​1438.l2649

edit: this is the reason I bought the S&W the first time. Does not seem to be any difference between them. Think I'll keep the extra $50..
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uvtest1
This is of course only for UV filters. For ND or polarizers there may be differences.

Go out at night and take a photo where the lamp post is caught in the photo. Now unscrew your UV filter and try the same photo again. Compare the outcome and you'll know why that $10 filter isn't much recommended on photo forums.

It is basically a scam, since you "protect" your lens while intentionally making all your photos come out a bit worse. What reason for a good lens if you don't want to maintain that quality? Why have an expensive multi-layer coating of the front element of the lens cancelled by a flat piece of glass with bad coating? Take acetone or something else strong and clean away the surface coating on the front element of the lens - then you don't have any coating to protect so no need to spend $10 on a filter. The outcome would most probably still be better, since you would not have a flat glass surface with bad coating just outside of another glass element.

The problem with loss of contrast, is that you need to compare two photos just to notice the difference. And same with flares - you need to look at the size of a flare with and without filter (or with cheap/expensive filter) to see what degradation that $10 "perfectly fine" filter brings.

Obviously, if all light comes from behind, then coating doesn't matter. But no photographer can go out and take photos and always know that all light comes from behind.

pwm2 wrote in post #16090715
Go out at night and take a photo where the lamp post is caught in the photo. Now unscrew your UV filter and try the same photo again. Compare the outcome and you'll know why that $10 filter isn't much recommended on photo forums.

It is basically a scam, since you "protect" your lens while intentionally making all your photos come out a bit worse. What reason for a good lens if you don't want to maintain that quality? Why have an expensive multi-layer coating of the front element of the lens cancelled by a flat piece of glass with bad coating? Take acetone or something else strong and clean away the surface coating on the front element of the lens - then you don't have any coating to protect so no need to spend $10 on a filter. The outcome would most probably still be better, since you would not have a flat glass surface with bad coating just outside of another glass element.

The problem with loss of contrast, is that you need to compare two photos just to notice the difference. And same with flares - you need to look at the size of a flare with and without filter (or with cheap/expensive filter) to see what degradation that $10 "perfectly fine" filter brings.

Obviously, if all light comes from behind, then coating doesn't matter. But no photographer can go out and take photos and always know that all light comes from behind.

Well, here he tested flare performance:
http://www.pbase.com …ules/image/8913​8381/large

If that's the worst extend of "image degradation" of a filter I think I can live with that. I'm honestly having trouble seeing much difference in the above test. I will at least use one to protect my $1000+ lens from a stray rock, dust, water, giraffe saliva or whatever on safari.

But I can't tell; are you advocating no filter, or only expensive/name brand filters? The former I guess could be a worthwhile discussion, but I have not seen much to convince me I need to spend $90 on a flat piece of glass, likely made in the same factory as the $10 one..

I recommend no filter, but instead a hood, if you want to protect from impact.

I recommend a (good) filter if you are in an environment where you might need protection from blowing sand. And in case of rain, some lenses will require a mounted filter to complete the weather sealing.

pwm2 wrote in post #16090989
I recommend no filter, but instead a hood, if you want to protect from impact.

I recommend a (good) filter if you are in an environment where you might need protection from blowing sand. And in case of rain, some lenses will require a mounted filter to complete the weather sealing.

This. It does an astounding job at absorbing impacts.

pwm2 wrote in post #16090989
I recommend no filter, but instead a hood, if you want to protect from impact.

I recommend a (good) filter if you are in an environment where you might need protection from blowing sand. And in case of rain, some lenses will require a mounted filter to complete the weather sealing.

Fair enough, that does make sense.

My problem is just finding what's "good", since that does not appear to follow "expensive".

This testshow that some of most expensive B&W filters perform the worst. Same with the super expensive Helipan which are in the bottom half.

I always get this feeling of a scam when I see $90 UV filters, but that's just my gut feeling..

ObiDamnKenobi wrote in post #16091013
This testshow that some of most expensive B&W filters perform the worst. Same with the super expensive Helipan which are in the bottom half.

Note that you are mixing apples and oranges there.

#3 and #5 in the test are B+W MRC filters. Position #11 isn't MRC. MRC is the current version of B+W's multi-coating. So if you want, you could say that Hoya is the third worst filter. But the Hoya HMC is #1.

Next thing, if you look at the test, you'll spot

An important part of this test was not how well the coating worked, but the amount of UV filtering (which we don't normally need for our digital cameras). And a small change in the start of the filter knee can make a big difference in test scores. A filter that starts to filter 10nm earlier might get a better score because it dampens more UV. Or it might get a worse score because it blocks more visible light. The test set the limit at 390nm. Not having a gap that gets ignored means that this part of the test can be very unfair to some filters.

If you look at the individual tests, you can see that the winning Hama filter did start the UV filtering at a slightly lower wavelength. So it got 8/10 for visible light and 10/10 for uv blocking. While the best B+W got 9/10 and 5/10 for the filter function. The B+W got 14/15 on coating - one point better than the test winner.

So is the best filter really the filter that did remove more of the visible light just to manage to remove more of the UV light we don't have a need to remove? Tests must always be read and understood - so we know what the test scores actually represent. Or if they even represent anything at all.

In the end, it isn't enough to just lock on to a brand of products. You also need to decide which model. A Canon 1000D isn't representative to all Canon DSLR available.

We always have to make some own research before we decide how much we consider a specific product is worth. But there is much work behind good coatings.

Look at the result of the non-MRC B+W filter in that test:
http://www.lenstip.com …B+W_72mm_010_UV​-Haze.html

You can clearly see how it has affected the image quality compared to using the lens without a filter.

I use both and my preference is for whichever is cheapest and that's usually Hoya.

ed rader wrote in post #16091648
I use both and my preference is for whichever is cheapest and that's usually Hoya.

Cheap for a reason. My Hoya polarizer literally fell apart. Common occurrence with Hoya. Never once had problems with B+W. Price difference is really not that much, especially when the cheaper one falls apart.

pwm2 wrote in post #16090989
I recommend no filter, but instead a hood, if you want to protect from impact.

I recommend a (good) filter if you are in an environment where you might need protection from blowing sand. And in case of rain, some lenses will require a mounted filter to complete the weather sealing.

Hoods only truly protect against FLARE.

If they protect against impact damage, that is purely serendipity, as they can just as easily increase the opportunity of damage to a lens!

'Protection' facts and myths:
•A filter can prevent drool-laden toddler fingers from touching the front element
•A filter can prevent salt spray from touching the front element
•A filter can prevent blown sand from touching the front element
•A filter cannot inherently prevent impact damage, such as from smacking into a wall...I had a lens damage its zoom mechanism so badly that I could not use the WA part of the zoom range, even though the filter looked totally unscathed from the impact!
•A hood can prevent the sun from causing flare when its rays strike the front surface of the lens.
•A hood can prevent some impact damage by absorbing the force and breaking (or getting bumped off)
•...but there are also threads on POTN which also show that a hood served as a lever arm to break lenses in half even with minor drop (like from the car seat to the car floor)


Example of hood acting as a lever to break the lens...
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=7644573&p​ostcount=1

The moral is, Use a filter or a hood for what it was primarily invented for...a filter is intended for optical modification, a hood is intended for prevention of flare. Any other 'benefit' is purely circumstantial.

ObiDamnKenobi wrote in post #16090978
Well, here he tested flare performance:
http://www.pbase.com …ules/image/8913​8381/large

If that's the worst extend of "image degradation" of a filter I think I can live with that. I'm honestly having trouble seeing much difference in the above test. I will at least use one to protect my $1000+ lens from a stray rock, dust, water, giraffe saliva or whatever on safari.

But I can't tell; are you advocating no filter, or only expensive/name brand filters? The former I guess could be a worthwhile discussion, but I have not seen much to convince me I need to spend $90 on a flat piece of glass, likely made in the same factory as the $10 one..

17mm lenses are prone to flare. You can't tell a difference because the flare and contrast is so bad on the lens that the choice of filter does not matter. So if you have that 17mm lens, it don't matter.

On the other hand if you have a flare resistant normal lens which doesn't flare, you can see a difference.

I've seen in some brochure that BW filters are superior because of the way the glass is mounted and the way the ring is designed. The way the ring holds the glass in BW keeps it flat.

The inferior cheaper way other manufacturers mount filters actually bends the glass, thus negating any flatness the glass might have.

I've had one mid-range hoya filter and it gave an interference pattern on sigma 70-200 which would interfere with AF of the camera.

I have full brand loyalty to BW because I believe you get what you pay for in terms of tolerances and quality contol. Whether that extra precision makes a difference is a whole different question and is between the user's needs and his wallet.