UV Filter suggestions?

prodigy2k7 · Apr 26, 2008

There are many diff types of TV filters. (Didnt know that; other than diameter size)
How can a filter (on b&h) be worth $150!?!? Thats a lot!

Im looking for 58mm UV and polarizer filters. I dont want most expensive but I dont want dirt cheap. Any suggestions? (Screw on filters)

skieur · Apr 26, 2008

Well, there is quite a wide range of opinions on UV and polarizing filters.

One view is that the best UV filters will protect from UV rays and the blue haze that developes in the distance of some landscape shots. Others say that any lens that is multi-coated will protect against UV rays and the only use of a UV filter is to keep smudges, fingerprints, and rain droplets off the lens.

Some say that the best polarizer transmits a lot of light, reflects very little, is made of great glass, is muticoated, thin, and resistant to breakage. Others will say that the differences caused by image quality between different filters are very minor and inconsequential. Even Popular Photography has suggested that the advertising of filters DESIGNED for digital cameras are more advertising hype than true differences between film and digital filters.

The question in my mind is: Can the differences between expensive filters and cheap filters be quantified in lab reviews? Would viewers be able to pick out which filter was used for which shot?

skieur

usayit · Apr 26, 2008

There have been a few threads of people initially complaining of the lack of image quality out of their lens.... they then later posted improved results after removing their UV filter. I wonder if they were using cheap or expensive filters...

B+W for me (usually).. no issues so far..

prodigy2k7 · Apr 26, 2008

usayit said:
There have been a few threads of people initially complaining of the lack of image quality out of their lens.... they then later posted improved results after removing their UV filter. I wonder if they were using cheap or expensive filters...

B+W for me (usually).. no issues so far..

Do you really have a ferrari? lol

Garbz · Apr 27, 2008

How can it cost that much? Do you know the process involved in multicoating something? Like expensive sunglasses etc? High temperatures, vacuum bake, a 100% even application. It's no longer just a piece of glass. :er:

Early · Apr 27, 2008

I've always been partial to the Tiffens. Hoyas, on the other hand

uke:

usayit · Apr 27, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
Do you really have a ferrari? lol

Yeh.. and I have Canon 1200mm f/5.6 too... ;-)

PM me.. got a bridge to sell yah.

WDodd · Apr 27, 2008

I have a couple B&W UV filters and a Hoya CPL and I like them both never had any problems.

Ben-71 · Apr 28, 2008

In some conditions, there would be no visible difference between a top quality filter and a cheep one. In other situations, it may make a difference - and that would, obviously, happen in that one in a lifetime shot...

For top quality, at lower prices, try Heliopan filters, at

CHRISTOPH GREINERPHOTO
Send a Mail to Sandra, at - [email protected]

JustAnEngineer · Apr 28, 2008

I notice a bit less flare when shooting into the sun with a multi-coated Crystal Optics UV filter than I do with the single-coated Canon UV filter. My only B&W ($$$) filter is a 77mm slim circular polarizer. It seems great so far.

Ben-71 · Apr 29, 2008

Indeed, when there's a light source in the frame, the difference between a top quality multi-coated filter and all others, reveals itself in full.

The Greiner Mail which I posted, is in Germany.
I addressed them following a recommendation on the Internet, and by now, after 2 shipments, I can pass on the recommendation from first-hand experience.
They speak English, and are both nice and meticulous.
Some of what they supply is cheaper than in the US, some is more expensive.
They would become even more attractive when the $ gets its head up again.

BTW, there's sales-talk about "Filters for Digital". which I don't 'buy'.
The only 'digital-dedicated' filter can be one that blocks both UV and IR,
to which sensors are sensitive (in spite of having an IR blocking layer).
I tried, and, in complete darkness, my D300 took nice shots, of a NIR
(Near Infra Red) light source.
However - except for some unique situations - the natural IR is so many f-stops lower than the "normal" light, that it doesn't change hues.

I took quite a few shots w/ & w/o a B+W UV-IR blocking filter.
So far, the effect of IR blocking wasn't visible.
I'll be able to test it again next month, on green vegetation at an
extremely hot weather in a desert.

Garbz · Apr 30, 2008

It's marketing fuzz, don't waste your day. IR filters are tailored to the lens. Look at the Canon 350D would you say it takes unbelievably nicer photos than a D70? A website I found listed the exposure value of bright scenes through Hoya R72 filters. The Canon 350D was around 1EV the D70 was around 7.5EV.

It is false to say sensors are sensitive to IR light. THat's a very small part of a large graph that would have to show HOW sensitive compared to the visible range. Just like film is sensitive to UV light but I've not NEEDed a UV filter for my film camera beyond standard lens protection.

Ben-71 · Apr 30, 2008

Garbz said:
<< .... It is false to say sensors are sensitive to IR light. THat's a very small part of a large graph that would have to show HOW sensitive compared to the visible range. >>

I agree with you. Sensors are sensitive to IR, but usually there just isn't enough of it, relative to the visible light spectrum.
In complete darkness, hold a TV remote control in front of a lens, press a button and take a picture. You'll get a pic' of the NIR source.
Repeat it, even in dim light, and the NIR is not enough to show up in the pic'.

[ Didn't yet find how to add a photograph here... ]

<< Just like film is sensitive to UV light but I've not NEEDed a UV filter for my film camera beyond standard lens protection. >>

In my experience, blocking UV does have an effect in UV-rich situations such as a sea shore, or high altitude & snow. or haze.
The effect is small, though. A skylight is better.

Garbz · Apr 30, 2008

Yeah I'm speaking generally here. In nearly all situations you would not need them, but I have had a few shots of film go blue when photographing snow before because of the high UV exposure.

What I was saying with IR is that yes it's sensitive, and yes it lets some through, but the imperfection of filter design means that any anti-IR filter you put on your camera that isn't specifically customised exactly for the sensor is likely to have either no effect at all, or may turn the image bluish. Letting through some of the IR spectra to the sensor (D70 does this) may help the sensor produce a normal image.

Either way it's not a worthy investment and in any case more often than not the Designed for Digital is marketing fluff. Look at the descriptions on the box. I saw one saying that the Thinner glass makes it more suited for digital cameras. I mean what the... :lol: