kshapero
South Florida Man
I do not like to use caps, so I usually use a hood and a UV filter. Is it really necessary to spend $25 or more on a B&W UV MRC filter or will a Kenko or Tiffen for $8 do?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You could even put a fingerprint on the cheap filter and I doubt that you'd notice the difference.
maddoc
... likes film again.
If you shoot a lot at night (like I do) with lots of point light sources, a clean multicoated UV filter is better, IMHO. I have had more problems with flare when using cheap filters in these situations.
MCTuomey
Veteran
+1 what gabor said. for night or lowlight conditions, the better the filter, the less ghosting and flare. otherwise i don't think it makes much, if any, difference.
Fred Burton
Well-known
A filter is so out of focus to the lens that it's essentially invisible. Other than maybe some reflection issues from bright light sources at night that MC filters might help, it really makes little difference.
Fred Burton
Well-known
If you shoot wide angles at f22 frequently, it's probably prudent not to use a dirty filter. I wouldn't use a dirty filter at all, of course. But you aren't going to see any significant difference between a Tiffen and a B&W in normal use.
sanmich
Veteran
I use protective filters and hoods.
I would say my filters are verry cheap compared to the glass they are protecting, so I tend to buy B&W MC.
I once tried the Hoya MC and quite quickly it had large coating smears on them, so I guess you get what you pay for...
On cheaper lenses, I use cheaper filters too.
I would say my filters are verry cheap compared to the glass they are protecting, so I tend to buy B&W MC.
I once tried the Hoya MC and quite quickly it had large coating smears on them, so I guess you get what you pay for...
On cheaper lenses, I use cheaper filters too.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Now how about hoods? Am I crazy paranoid that I must use both? Warning due to anal retentive I will probably always use a hood and filter no matter what.
oftheherd
Veteran
I don't fault anyone for their desires to protect the front element of their lens. I personally try to keep a UV on those lenses I have on a camera the most, which is the 50's. I even have a couple of 72mm UV's for a couple of very wide lenses. I tend to use Hoyas as that was what I could get when I first got into using filters.
I seldom use a hood. Even on the 100mm on the Super Press 23, and that is a rubber hood that is permantly mounted. I seldom extend it. Just not a thing I ever got used to doing. When I perceive the need for a hood, I usually just shade with my hand or a hat. Again, just me.
I seldom use a hood. Even on the 100mm on the Super Press 23, and that is a rubber hood that is permantly mounted. I seldom extend it. Just not a thing I ever got used to doing. When I perceive the need for a hood, I usually just shade with my hand or a hat. Again, just me.
maddoc
... likes film again.
A lens hood is the only protection in case of bumping your lens into something and when shooting against strong backlight ... On the other hand if you use a Nikon 50/1.1 the original hood is not the best choice considering its price ...
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Say a $4000 35mm Summilux ASPH. Plus a $8 filter. Equals a $8 ASPH lens.
If you use a filter get a good one. Good filters use brass mounts and schot glass. My Heliopan and B+W MRC filters range $35-$100 for my larger lenses.
The other benefit of filters is that you can wipe them off as needed instead of scrubbing the lens. Scrubbing the lens will eventually scratch it or smudge the lens coating.
If you use a filter get a good one. Good filters use brass mounts and schot glass. My Heliopan and B+W MRC filters range $35-$100 for my larger lenses.
The other benefit of filters is that you can wipe them off as needed instead of scrubbing the lens. Scrubbing the lens will eventually scratch it or smudge the lens coating.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Some people just like to brag about how expensive their filters are.
Pablito
coco frío
I had the same experience with Hoya MC filters, Tiffen seemed better.
peter_n
Veteran
Hoya has comparatively soft surfaces and aluminum rings. B+W and Heliopan use brass rings and very high quality & hard finished glass. Heliopan can be tough to find and their distributor here in the US is a horrible company so I tend to stick with B+W. Generally I've been buying them at B&H Photo in NYC but recently found a vendor on eBay that heavily discounts many B+W filters. My most recent purchase there was for a 77mm MRC which was 1/2 the B&H price. The MRC filters are expensive but they are very good indeed and well worth it. I use one + a hood on every lens and that means quick lens changing out of the bag and no more "OMG I forgot to take the lens cap off".
kross
sonnarism
i've used a hoya uv filter (very cheap compared to b+w) on my 400mm canon L glass. I couldn't get even 1 tack sharp photo out of it. then i took it off, shot without the filter and it was tack sharp. then i bought a b+w uv filter put it on and took a test shot. still tack sharp. from then on, i believe, i believe... oh...i believe, i believe!
John Lawrence
Well-known
I think for filters (and most things generally in life) the old adage, "you get what you pay for" holds true. I've always used either Heliopan or B&W but have been known to splurge on the odd Leica UV filter.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
I read on the internets that Hoya will soon be coming out with a line of edible UV filters. Imagine that - an edible UV filter!