Filter review
Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Equipment forums
Forum Name: Lens Talk
Forum Description: For discussion of lenses, filters etc.
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46446
Printed Date: 22 May 2025 at 01:02
Topic: Filter review
Posted By: alpha700
Subject: Filter review
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 14:06
|
Just found this review, 20 uv filters on another forum see what you think.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html - http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html ------------- a900, Minolta 135-2.8, Sony 70-300 SSM G, Sony CZ 24-70 SSM G, Sony 50-2.8, HVL-F58AM + FAEB1AM Battery Pack. http://www.pureportrait.co.uk - My Link |
Replies:
Posted By: spada
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 15:52
|
Awesome, it looks like I'll be sticking with my Hoya HMC UV(0) 49mm on my Minolta 50/1.7 instead of the Minolta UV filter. Time to toss that 55mm Tiffen off of my 100-300APO, after seeing only 90% visible light transmission. ------------- Ben Spada A6000 | E16 | E16-50 | E50/1.8 | Sigma 30 | A70-210/4 | Many other alts |
Posted By: CTYankee
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 19:01
|
great test ! It reaffirms other less thorough info that's out there. Hoya HMC & Pro-1 for me :) Also nice illustration of just how bad really bad filters can be. ------------- CZ16-80 | 28-75D | 28/2 | 85/1.4 | 70-300G | 400G |
Posted By: Bob J
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 19:19
|
Great link thanks for posting - Hope you don't mind that I edited to make the link 'live'... ------------- RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum |
Posted By: campy
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 21:14
Are you trying to piss me off? Why couldn't you post this last night? I just bought 2 Kenko Pro-1 filters after reading how the Kenko and Hoya were the same just cheaper. |
alpha700 wrote:Posted By: alpha700
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 22:38
No problem didnt know how to make the link work thanks. ------------- a900, Minolta 135-2.8, Sony 70-300 SSM G, Sony CZ 24-70 SSM G, Sony 50-2.8, HVL-F58AM + FAEB1AM Battery Pack. http://www.pureportrait.co.uk - My Link |
Posted By: alpha700
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 22:41
sorry mate.  ------------- a900, Minolta 135-2.8, Sony 70-300 SSM G, Sony CZ 24-70 SSM G, Sony 50-2.8, HVL-F58AM + FAEB1AM Battery Pack. http://www.pureportrait.co.uk - My Link |
Posted By: campy
Date Posted: 12 May 2009 at 23:46
| You know I'm only joking don't you? Thanks for the link I will remember when I buy a CP. |
Posted By: gurluver
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 00:59
| wasn't the Super HMC Pro1 suppose to have 99.7% light transmission? base on the review the light transmission is 97.x%... same as the HMC version. |
Posted By: mst
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 17:03
Glad I got the hoya hd pro filters for my lenses.  ------------- a700+VG, Sony 70-300 SSM G, Sony CZ16-80, Sony 11-18, |
Posted By: OniFactor
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 17:45
|
the Hoya HD's aren't on there, though... ------------- Cam Lewis a500w/ebaygrip|Dynax7|Sigma70-200f/2.8IIHSM|Sigma24-60f/2.8|SigmaEF-610DGSuperFlash |
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 13 May 2009 at 20:22
|
added the link to respective knowledge base entry:) ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: CKsam2
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 12:58
|
Thanks for posting this! I'd often wondered about whether UV filters worked/did a good job etc.
Has anybody got anything to say for the Hoya HMC Supers or Pro1's over the standard HMC's? ------------- Part of the Sheffield Minolta minority. |
Posted By: Heyjijdaar
Date Posted: 15 May 2009 at 14:26
| Thanks, great link! |
Posted By: Heyjijdaar
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 14:12
| I've seen it's time to change from a #16 to a #1 ranking uv-filter. I've bought myself a new Hoya for my beercan. |
Posted By: Dunadan
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 15:01
Hmm, be careful with those guys... they are quite known in Poland to make not really accurate tests and saying some strange things  But quite often they do interesting tests ;-)------------- Jakub |
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 15:02
|
i checked out their lenses tests too, and as dunadan said, i didn't realy find their tests very acurrate.. ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: Dunadan
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 21:14
It's not my opinion... aluthough I follow it partially. Check test of ZA 85/1.4 - they called this lens a "lens witout AF" - according to them it's worse than bad... Sometimes their tests show totally opossite results, sometimes... well, they have good ideas ( test comparison of old and new Nikon lenses ). Anyway - simply be cautious, as always in fact... - always take into consideration at least few testing websites' opinions. ------------- Jakub |
Posted By: OngL
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 16:39
|
Anyone has more information on Sony CZ T* filters? I bought those filter for almost all my lenses except few that I will not use anymore (kit lens, etc). There seems to be little information with high price tag compared to all other manufacturers..
How can we justify Sony T* lenses compared those good ones in the review? |
Posted By: bharnois
Date Posted: 02 June 2009 at 15:30
|
I just replaced the Quantaray QMC on my 70-200 with a Hoya HMC Super UV(0). You sure as heck can see the difference when holding the two side by side. Much less light is reflected by the Hoya. This Hoya is supposed to have 99.7% transmission, the highest I've seen.
I don't care if my other glass has filters or not but I want something on my 'baby'. FWIW: The HOYA packaging clearly states that they are made by Tokina. ------------- Just luvin' DYXUM. |
Posted By: AsuAmo
Date Posted: 02 June 2009 at 21:47
|
If we use UV filter only to protect lens' front element why should we care if 90 or 99% of light passed through? ------------- α65/700|∑10-20|S16-50|M35-105|∑50-150|M100-200|T200-400 |
Posted By: brororn
Date Posted: 02 June 2009 at 21:50
I may have undestood this wrong, but from some other source I have read that modern sensors are not sensitive to UV as old time film is. I suppose that is why there are specifically UV sensitive CCD digital cameras available -not sure if CMOS is different. So UV filter is in practice more or less useless and clear protective filter does the same thing - if it is of good optical quality otherwise. ------------- |
Posted By: travelshots
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 20:57
|
I cite my postin in another Dyxum thread:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/best-filter-for-lens-protection_topic47835.html It is important to read that test carefully. Lens mounted UV-Filters are usually not required for digital cameras. They are mostly used just as front lens protection. Hence, the UV suppression perfomance that was mentioned to be the most important criteria in this test, is of no importance in that case. Subsequently, the given overall ranking is meaningless for this application. If you look at the transmission curves for visible light, where not just the total transmission but also the equability over the frequency range is important, you will see that all filters are more or less acceptable. The main and very important differences turn out in the flare test. Unwanted flares can easily ruin your photo. A filter that is not perfect in this property is not feasible as an allround filter. Considering this, the B&W MRC coated filter is the best in test follwoed by the Kenko pro (which has a significantly higher vignetting than the B&W) and the Hoya UV 0 (only these Hoya series). It should be mentioned that other, but untested optical properties are important too. |
Posted By: AdrianGail
Date Posted: 08 August 2013 at 15:12
Interestingly I found this on another webiste:
Might be worth saving myself a fiver and going Kenko! |
Posted By: macronut
Date Posted: 11 August 2013 at 09:43
| great link!!!!!!!!! very interesting read. the staff might want to consider making this thread a sticky for awhile |
Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 29 December 2013 at 00:43
| Interesting information for sure. I've been using B+W filters since 2008 with good results. However, I will agree that for every plus there's a need for minus. I like the the B+W construction and the nano coat for cleaning, but like any filter there is a trade-off. Even my 007 B+W will cast a bit of orange or brown under certain yellow artificial light. My advice is to remove your filters for indoor shots. |
Posted By: goldencode
Date Posted: 29 December 2013 at 00:49
|
I've been happy with UV filters from B&W, Marumi and Hoya for front element protection. Just stay away from the super cheap ones. ------------- a700 (2), 400G, 200G, 100 Macro, 50 1.7, 55-200, 35-105, Tam 24-135, Sig 10-20 |
Posted By: minolta mad
Date Posted: 15 January 2014 at 20:53
| Yes great link and very intersting reading |
Posted By: awa54
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 17:52
As travelshots says, the biggest issues for us digital users are light transmission, flatness of the pass-band and flare resistance. So if you were using these filters with film the ranking would be relevant, but for digital the pass-band light transmission is far more important than the UV suppression... although a stop-band hinge point that impedes on the visible spectrum is a detriment here, so filters with a crisp roll-off that starts as close to the bottom of the visible spectrum as possible are most desirable: http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/generalfilters/uv0/ - http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products/generalfilters/uv0/ note the Hoya UV(C) which starts to roll at a lower wavelength than the other filters, this one is undoubtedly a "for Digital" filter. Now for a thread hijack; have any of you noticed different color rendition or white balance response when you switch from skylight (slight warming) filters to straight up UV cut or clear protective filters? I just made a complete conversion from HMC SKY 1(B) filters to HMC UV(C), but haven't been out shooting since the change over. I am hoping that the approximately 1/3 stop light transmission gain in the visible spectrum will be the only change (and a positive one!). So don't regret the Kenko or Heliopan UV filter purchases, unless you still shoot film that is ;) ------------- shiny "new" a900 with 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2, 200/2.8 and 28-135/4-4.5 (plus a huge stack of other less-used Maxxum glass) |
Posted By: awa54
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 18:11
Don't you want the extra 9% light to reach your sensor/film? having a filter with low light transmission is like using a neutral density filter, except that most of the lousy UV filters are also un-coated, which adds to flare susceptibility... a double whammy :P ------------- shiny "new" a900 with 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2, 200/2.8 and 28-135/4-4.5 (plus a huge stack of other less-used Maxxum glass) |
Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 18:40
|
I've been using B+W 007 Nano's on both my ZA 135 and my new ZA 50, and before that my Leica primes (wish like hell I never sold them). I haven't noticed any issues so maybe I'm just not realizing the potential that going without a filter may offer. However, given the price of these damn lenses I refuse to go without frontal protection. On the streets of Italy people bump into you all the time so the chances of your front element getting whacked is pretty high. Anyway, I'm willing to lose a little bit of light transmission, if for nothing else, peace of mind. Now, if somebody knows of a better filter that provides the same quality of Nano coat that offers less light blocking properties then I'm all ears. 
|
Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 18:48
|
Wow, this thread is almost five years old..... Anyway, if on the streets of Italy people bump into you all the time so the chances of your front element getting whacked is pretty high, you should use your lenshood, not a filter  ------------- Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101 |
Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 16 February 2014 at 18:54
|
Andy, Since I love the Dutch people (used to live/work there) I will try not to be rude, but it's hard to shoot through my lens cover. Yes, I know I can always take it off, but I typically lose a lot of shots or run a higher risk when I reach down to the ground to pick up the cap when I drop it (happens a lot with me). Being a European, you know that in public people are up closer and more personal than they are in the west, so seldom will anyone yield to allow you to stop for even one second! |
Posted By: p-unit
Date Posted: 30 March 2014 at 19:18
Thanks for this tip! I'm heading to Italy soon and hadn't even thought about that fact! Lens hood it is! |
Posted By: CuriousOne
Date Posted: 30 October 2014 at 08:32
|
Recently bought from ebay this FOTGA (It was listed and pictured as NEEWER, but identical FOTGA arrived) filter: http://www.ebay.com/itm/191303585220?_trksid=p2059210.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Below is the photo without the filter:  And here's photo with filter:  Filter was checked, cleaned and so on. But it is initially not transparent enough - difference can be seen by bare eye, looking through it. My ancient Soligor 77mm UV filter delivers much better results! |
Posted By: lonewolf
Date Posted: 04 February 2015 at 15:28
|
so Hoya HMC UV would be fine for just protection/ease of cleaning? Are there fakes of these online? Hard to judge but will go for an ebay seller with good rating and average price ------------- a7iii, 200-600, 28 F2, 85 F1.8 + lots of Nikon stuff |
Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 29 September 2015 at 19:49
At the risk of stating the obvious, adding a UV filter gives you two more air-glass interfaces without any appreciable optical benefit (and clearly isn't a good choice for this kind of scene anyway). Not something I'd do unless the filter served some important function (ND, CPL, or protection against sandstorms), and even then it would need to have the best multi-coatings for use in bright conditions. I mainly use ND/CPL when there *aren't* many flare sources in view. And on another point, so-called sky filters (1B) came into fashion while I was taking slide pictures and I hated them. They turned the skies pink. ------------- Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ... |
Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 20:50
|
Just picked up on this thread when about to start one with this query: I have just taken the plunge (gulp) and got a 70-400Gii. Now I understand this lens has some very fancy new Nano AR lens coatings. Due to the conditions I shoot in a protective filter is an absolute requirement*. In film days I used skylights, on digital I have gone over to UV filters (I use Heliopan UV-0 SH-PMCs). Can anyone help me re what type of filter might be best for this particular lens? *e.g. on one occasion, when using a new filter for first time it got a nice little chip in it from grit thrown up by horse's hooves - just glad it wasn't the lens. 
|
Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 20:59
|
Why UV? There was some use for it in the film era with uncoated lenses, but these days there is no need for UV filters. I would use clear (protective) filters. Any good make of filter will suffice, heliopans are among those. ------------- Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101 |
Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 21:11
|
I suppose I'm just used to using them and assumed they were the right thing...I will look into clear ones, thank you for the suggestion. Edit- I use heliopans because I like the brass rings, and them having threads both sides. The brass means they don't bind like the aluminium ones, which matters to me as I don't take them off much - only if I have to put a polariser on. Aluminium ones seem to bind badly if on for a long time.... |
Posted By: stiuskr
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 21:15
|
I'd get the Sony, if it's anything like their c-pol's it'll be Schott glass and comes in a really nice clam shell case. http://www.adorama.com/isovf77mp.html - http://www.adorama.com/isovf77mp.html ------------- Rob Suits Jr. a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2 |
Posted By: whiteheat
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 22:30
Well, a quick search yielded these. Caution, the last two links are to "pro" grade filter reviews (and therefore wallet draining $$$ should you be tempted), which if you are susceptible to GAS, could be dangerous to you. Though how much value they actually represent is open to serious question: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/filter-reviews.aspx - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/filter-reviews.aspx http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-camera-lens-filters-flashes-and-accessories-for-taking-great-photos/ - http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-camera-lens-filters-flashes-and-accessories-for-taking-great-photos/ http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html - http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html http://bestgr9.com/list-top-10-best-camera-uv-filter-in-2015-reviews/ - http://bestgr9.com/list-top-10-best-camera-uv-filter-in-2015-reviews/ http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/11/19/breakthrough-photography-x1-x2-and-x3-uv-filters-review/ - http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/11/19/breakthrough-photography-x1-x2-and-x3-uv-filters-review/ http://digital-photography-school.com/review-vu-professional-filter-system/ - http://digital-photography-school.com/review-vu-professional-filter-system/ ------------- Nothing is as it first appears. |
Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 22:50
|
That's great, thanks so much to you all for that information.
|
Posted By: waldo_posth
Date Posted: 03 November 2016 at 10:42
|
If you are working in a dirty environment it's probably good to have a filter that can easily be cleaned. My experience is that nano-coated filters are the easiest to clean. The B+W "MRC nano" filters have done a good service for me in this respect. The come as protection, UV, ND Vario and CPL filters. Filter cleaning can be a very tedious task. ------------- "Stare, pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." (Walker Evans) http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo_posth/ - http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo_posth/ |