UV Filter: Can It Be A Cheapo One ?

R

ruben

Guest
Hi folks,
I badly need your advice.
I am assembling a small medium format system on the basis of the Pentacon Six mount, which in my case will use the Kiev 6c camera and the Pentacon Six camera.

The wide angle lenses I have bought is a Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50mm, which is supposed to give a decent performance - not a superclass market crushing best seller. According to the situation of the lens, it is sold between 100 and 300 dollars. Ok, 350.- no more. But remember we are in a period of low prices for many medium format lenses and cameras.

My problem is that the outer surface measures 86mm, and has an almost unexistent thread for filters - meaning that the outer glass is VERY prong to accidental finger greasing and other dangers as well. Therefore a protective filter is due, as well as a metal cap.

We all know that filters should not be lower quality to the lens quality. My question is nevertheless, if in the case of an UV filter we can make exception, due to the transparency of the filter glass and go for a $12 cheapo Chinese UV.

I have no option of no adding a protective filter, that will have to be renewed from time to time, according to the use of the lens. So far the outer glass of the lens looks without a single streak.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Hi Stephan,

In general I never use any protective filters for any lens but metal hoods. In this case, due to the massive surface of glass, a protective filter is a must even to prevent accidents when caping !

Now, would you like to give me your recommendation for an appropriate filter trademark ?

What about Hoya $70 filters ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I had a 50mm Flektagon, as well as 180mm and 300mm Sonnars, all big glass, and mostly just used them without any filter. Face it, lenses will pick up the occasional streak and a bit of dust. That's why you can buy lens cleaning fluid and lens tissue. You have to do an awful lot of lens cleaning to do any damage, and most people seem to be way too concerned about both dirt and cleaning.

In really harsh conditions, like blowing sand or salt spray while aboard a sailboat, by the time your lens really gets hurt enough to matter you likely will have killed your camera also.

Cheap filter vs. ultra expensive multi-coated filter? Yes there are some situations where the multi-coating might make a bit of difference, but beyond that I wouldn't worry about it. If you normally shoot in flare prone situations expect to be making 16"x20" prints or larger then maybe you'd notice a difference between filterless, cheap filter, and expensive filter when you compare the three shots taken of the same subject one right after the other. And maybe not. The Flektagon is a great lens, but it's not an expensive lens compared to other medium format wide angles. Skip the filter.
 
Ruben,

Do some poking around for bargain filter places.

Another option is KEH, take a look here.......

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...=&BCC=&CC=&CCC=&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=86mm filter

I'd look at an excellent used from the best manufacturer as a MUCH better option than a low cost one from anywhere. The QC on the best, even with a small blemish will result in a much better picture than a new so-so filter. You're old enough to have seen really old windows that have wavy glass, no? Around a lens you have the same issue but it's magnified.

B2 (;->
 
This is a debate that takes on an almost religious fervor. My personal opinion is that Hoya filters would be fine. My personal opinion is that filters aren't a bad idea for protection. However, there was a time when I went for a long time without filters for protection. I wasn't in the harshest of environments on a constant basis either. But I used lens cleaning fluid and lens cleaning paper. Again, my opinion is that is better than lens pens and brushes. Blowers are good though.

All my opinion. Others are free to agree or disagree as they wish. They won't change my opinion nor do I expect to change theirs. Once you have made a decision you will no doubt get a little militant about is as do others.
 
No doubt, this is sort of our Dunker or Dipper argument for RFF. I look at it as if I can afford to replace the lens if it gets trashed without blinking an eye, no filter (e.g. FSU general stuff). If not (e.g. my old Leica or Nikkor glass) I put filters on it. Now I have not put any on my CV glass, but I will be on the look out for a filter for my 35/1.8 Nikkor sometime before spring.

But keep in mind, YMMV and I'm not a Dunker or a Dipper, I'm a cutter. Well at least my sons and wife are.

B2 (;->
 
The glass may be transparent, but what you're paying for with higher-end filters is the coating and the quality of it. flare from an uncoated or crappily-coated filter is a nightmare.
I'd say skip it and keep a cap on it! (though this is coming from the guy who never keeps a cap on anything..)
 
Idea with acceptable tax attached:

I can buy 2 cheapo filters, dismount their glass, and use them as a kind of lens body extension to make the protruding glass much less prominent. The actual protrusion of the Flekto 50 glass is the worst I could possible imagine.

But two rings (ex filters) will make for the necessary difference to cap and/or attach my push on hood with confidence.

The tax, of course. will be some vignetting. I am ready to pay as this seems to be the lesser evil.

Now, concerning the idea of not taking care too much and buying a new lens from time to time, you should know that apparently there are good Fleks and less good Fleks. If I happen to have a less good one - then the less carefull approach will take place. But if it happens that I own a good sample - then the more carefull approach will be at the order of the day.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
"If I happen to have a less good one - then the less carefull approach will take place. But if it happens that I own a good sample - then the more carefull approach will be at the order of the day."

Great strategy. Would do the same.

BTW, KEH has several Tiffen filters in 86mm available used for around US 40.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Look out for soviet or GDR filters. They exist this size and are not too expensive. Especially the GDR ones are good quality Shott glass, but the soviet ones are also not bad. I would use them when in condition like sailing or desert trip or something similar and use nothing but a good metalic lenshood otherwise.
 
Eugen Mezei said:
Look out for soviet or GDR filters. They exist this size and are not too expensive. Especially the GDR ones are good quality Shott glass, ......
Click to expand...

Thank you Eugen, this also sounds as an interesting idea. But where should I be looking for GDR filters ? eBay ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I've done test comparisons with a generic uncoated glass u.v. versus a multicoated hoya premium u.v. filter. The results: With the sun at your back, there is no difference in quality in either 11x14" prints. BUT, if the light source is coming from the side, or towards the lens, the flare is horrendous in the uncoated u.v. filter.

Conclusion: you can use a cheap glass u.v. filter, but a lens hood is a must use.
 
Hi mark,
Your post is quite interesting. The problem with hoods, and I always use them, is that their shadowing effect is good for tele lenses. As for standard and wides, their coverage is very very poor, if not unexistanc in the case of wides.

so I guess that in such instance of light coming into the lenses, the cheapo UV owner will do better by dismounting his UV than by leaving it there ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Hi Ruben; i agree...the owner of the cheap u.v. filter is better with it off of his lens when the glaring light is coming towards him. Dust storm, rain and waves is another thing...best keep the filter on :)
 
If a lens is prone to flare (and most vintage lenses are), a cheap single-coated filter will it make worse for sure.
 
Now there is a new type of cheapos called "protective filters" that are not buy plain glass.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Ruben,

#1 Best Solution for Filter & Lenshood combo for the Zeiss CZJ 50 Flektagon:

1) Hasselblad Carl Zeiss 86mm Haze Filter, Hasselblad part #50180. Do not pay more than $50 for one on Ebay. They also made yellow, green/yellow, and orange. I have paid as low as $30, sometimes. Also fits the 180mm & 300mm CZJ Sonnars.

2) Hasselblad Lens Shade 86mm for the 50mm F2.8, Hasselblad part #40584. Do not pay more than $50 for this one, either. I paid $5 for a bent one, and straightened it out. $30 is about right.

-NO VIGNETTING OR CUTOFF- with this combo at any F/stop, and decent maximal shading, as well. Side benefit is that you have an all Carl Zeiss system :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom