Is the Hoya Pro1 D the best filter Hoya makes?

I'm specifically looking at the C-Pl filters

garycoleman wrote in post #8518712
I'm specifically looking at the C-Pl filters

I think their new HD line is a bit better with hardened glass and multicoatings that are more resistant to stains and scratches.

http://www.hoyafilter.​com/products/hoya/HD-01.html

The new HD filters also give better light transmission.

The SHMC line is even better than the HD for transmission...HD 99.35% vs. SHMC 99.7%

In the case of 'for digital', the older products (not specific 'for digital') are better! The HD 'improvement' is only in the cleaning (less tendency to streak while cleaning) and in scratch resistant coatings--which should not matter if you take care of your filters. I can't recall the last time I had to clean a filter, I don't put nose prints or my grubby fingers on them, and I try to back up before toddler grandkids get to them! So I prefer better optical qualities, not cleaning qualities or antscratch.

Wilt wrote in post #8521043
The SHMC line is even better than the HD for transmission...HD 99.35% vs. SHMC 99.7%

In the case of 'for digital', the older products (not specific 'for digital') are better! The HD 'improvement' is only in the cleaning (less tendency to streak while cleaning) and in scratch resistant coatings--which should not matter if you take care of your filters. I can't recall the last time I had to clean a filter, I don't put nose prints or my grubby fingers on them, and I try to back up before toddler grandkids get to them! So I prefer better optical qualities, not cleaning qualities or antscratch.

I have used both and disagree. The difference in light transmission is marginal. The coatings on the HD are far better. Not only is the HD easier to clean, but it also seems to repel dirt, and the HD glass is also much harder than other Hoya filters. The HD uses a thinner mount than the Pro 1, 5mm vs. 5.4mm, lessening vignetting. Optically, the HD is more uniform than other Hoya filters I have used and flare is better controlled. Lastly I find the lubricants used in the HD CPL to be excellent, even in freezing conditions. The filter will not bind, as will some of the B+W CPL filters under similar conditions.

NYPhotog wrote in post #8522186
I have used both and disagree. The difference in light transmission is marginal. The coatings on the HD are far better. Not only is the HD easier to clean, but it also seems to repel dirt, and the HD glass is also much harder than other Hoya filters. The HD uses a thinner mount than the Pro 1, 5mm vs. 5.4mm, lessening vignetting. Optically, the HD is more uniform than other Hoya filters I have used and flare is better controlled. Lastly I find the lubricants used in the HD CPL to be excellent, even in freezing conditions. The filter will not bind, as will some of the B+W CPL filters under similar conditions.

Yes, since it generally takes about 3% to visualize a difference (not merely per instrumentation which is far more sensivitive than the eye and brain), I will not dispute the statement.

I would love to see evidence of this latter claim, as all the prior 'for digital' so-called advantages have not been proven with objective validation, they remain as marketing hype.

Hoya is not calling the HD a "for digital" filter". Over the years I have used or am still using B+W, Hoya, Heliopan, Tiffen, Nikon, Schneider, Lee, and Singh-Ray filters (and probably a couple of others that I have forgotten), and I think the HD filters are excellent. I do wish the mounts were brass but, other than that, they are absolutely first rate. BTW, I consider HD (and B+W) filters better than Heliopan, which I think are over-rated and over-priced.

NYPhotog wrote in post #8522620
Hoya is not calling the HD a "for digital" filter". Over the years I have used or am still using B+W, Hoya, Heliopan, Tiffen, Nikon, Schneider, Lee, and Singh-Ray filters (and probably a couple of others that I have forgotten), and I think the HD filters are excellent. I do wish the mounts were brass but, other than that, they are absolutely first rate. BTW, I consider HD (and B+W) filters better than Heliopan, which I think are over-rated and over-priced.

Oh, the big 'Digital' on the box must refer to the fact that you hold it in your fingers to screw it on the lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.adorama.com …flAID021866&sku​=HY77CPLHD

Wilt wrote in post #8523609
Oh, the big 'Digital' on the box must refer to the fact that you hold it in your fingers to screw it on the lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.adorama.com …flAID021866&sku​=HY77CPLHD

Photo credit: Ken Rockwell

...

Great, the box says digital. The fact is you have not given any reasons at all as to why the SHMC series is better than the HD series, other than to provide an inconsequential, meaningless, light transmission measurement. I have listed several improvements of the HD and I would like to hear why the SHMC is superior.

If I didn't already have a Circ-Polarizer, I'd definitely get the Hoya HD polarizer simply because the polarizing film used on these block significantly less light than most other polarizers, so you can get faster shutter speeds.

NYPhotog wrote in post #8524110
Great, the box says digital. The fact is you have not given any reasons at all as to why the SHMC series is better than the HD series, other than to provide an inconsequential, meaningless, light transmission measurement. I have listed several improvements of the HD and I would like to hear why the SHMC is superior.

Optical performance simply is needed for something going over the front of your lens, plain and simple. The rest (harder to scratch, easier to clean) are frills to address past complaints by some users, or (black edged filter and the other features 'for digital') are marketing hype. I have to read more about the polarizing element in the HD, to see just how much benefit there is, if it is sufficient to net 1/3EV or more, any less is simply hype with no material effect on exposure values.

Wilt wrote in post #8525301
Optical performance simply is needed for something going over the front of your lens, plain and simple. The rest (harder to scratch, easier to clean) are frills to address past complaints by some users, or (black edged filter and the other features 'for digital') are marketing hype. I have to read more about the polarizing element in the HD, to see just how much benefit there is, if it is sufficient to net 1/3EV or more, any less is simply hype with no material effect on exposure values.

Well, you made a statement that the SHMC filters were better. I would like to know why they are better. I provided user experience that the HD filters are superior to other Hoya filters. Again, optically they are better, the coatings are better, and the lubricants in the CPL filters are better.

NYPhotog wrote in post #8526998
Well, you made a statement that the SHMC filters were better. I would like to know why they are better. I provided user experience that the HD filters are superior to other Hoya filters. Again, optically they are better, the coatings are better, and the lubricants in the CPL filters are better.

SHMC = 99.7% transmission, HD = 99.35% transmission, per Hoya.
0.35% difference per their claim, I accept as 'better'. Your reports of 'better user experience' are not optical advantages, are they? HD "optically they are better"...can you elaborate in what way they are better? I'm curious, not challenging!

Wilt wrote in post #8527028
SHMC = 99.7% transmission, HD = 99.35% transmission, per Hoya.
0.35% difference per their claim, I accept as 'better'. Your reports of 'better user experience' are not optical advantages, are they? HD "optically they are better"...can you elaborate in what way they are better? I'm curious, not challenging!

That's it, marginal, light transmission difference, which we have agreed is meaningless? After having used both the HD and other Hoya filters, I have already elaborated as to why the HD series is superior.