Filter review

travelshots wrote: 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.

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/ 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 ;)

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.

Edited by Saber - 16 February 2014 at 18:48

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!

Edited by Saber - 16 February 2014 at 19:10

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!

CuriousOne wrote: 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!

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.

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.

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

Edited by stiuskr - 31 October 2016 at 21:18