Is this Hoya UV filter genuine?

[Macrosaurus]

Hi,

I bought a Hoya 52mm UV filter for protection on the kit lens that came with my Nikon D5100. I paid around a tenner for this via Amazon Marketplace- it's around 28 quid on Jessops website- but I'm wondering if it's genuine.

The bulb reflection on the first shot seems to be slightly brighter in the photo than it appears in real life, and the reflection is more emerald-green coloured in reality.

I notice the case doesn't have "Japan" embossed on it (as was given as a supposed sign of genuine filters, and as appears on some old Hoya filters I have which came in otherwise identical plastic cases).









Any thoughts appreciated, thanks.

- MS

 

[odd jim]

To hard to tell, the pictures are very low res.

 

[HoppyUK]

To hard to tell, the pictures are very low res.

You have to click on them Jim

My guess is it's genuine. That green reflection is characteristic of multicoating and I can't imagine any faker troubling to do that.

The box means nothing really. They change all the time and that doesn't look like it's been sourced from UK stock.

 

[eccles]

There are several grades of filter from Hoya. The £28 one at Jessops is the superior Pro1 version. Yours looks genuine but it's not a Pro1.

 

[odd jim]

You have to click on them Jim

My guess is it's genuine. That green reflection is characteristic of multicoating and I can't imagine any faker troubling to do that.

The box means nothing really. They change all the time and that doesn't look like it's been sourced from UK stock.

As yes, doh!!!!

Yes that looks genuine though as stated, it's not a higher end one.

 

[Macrosaurus]

My guess is it's genuine. That green reflection is characteristic of multicoating and I can't imagine any faker troubling to do that.

Have to admit that I'd wondered about that. Maybe I expected even more reduction of the reflection than I got, and I have had what appeared to be glare in one photo, though I wouldn't want to overstate that!

There are several grades of filter from Hoya. The £28 one at Jessops is the superior Pro1 version. Yours looks genuine but it's not a Pro1.

Yeah, I appreciate that Hoya sell some higher end ones.

Jessops sell both including the HMC version and the (supposedly) better SHMC version at the same price, though the latter is a "web exclusive".

Still, according to this filters test, the HMC came in above some supposedly superior Hoya filters. Not clear whether those are the same as the ones we were discussing though.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback from everyone. It looks like it's genuine, thanks.



Edit; Just one thing. I noticed that this filter had what appeared to be some minor flaws (scratches?) in the coating. Hoya imply that the coating on their filters is relatively tough

"Also, the coating on some filters [by implication not Hoya's!] is “painted” on or applied as a cold spray that wares off or can even flake off easily."

Yet I was able to make marks on the coating at the edge of this filter using very little pressure with a wooden toothpick. Hmm.

 

[Yardbent]

for what it's worth............i have that filter in my hand

compared to photo#3

the white lettering on mine is thinner and sharper - more ''professional''

the word Hoya does not have a slash through the H

the HMC font is different

the order of printing is

HOYA HMC 52mm UV (0) JAPAN


let me have dinner and i'll post a pic

BTW the (C) version is quite thin compared to the (0) .. yours isn't

 

[Macrosaurus]

the white lettering on mine is thinner and sharper - more ''professional''

the word Hoya does not have a slash through the H

the HMC font is different

the order of printing is

HOYA HMC 52mm UV (0) JAPAN


let me have dinner and i'll post a pic

BTW the (C) version is quite thin compared to the (0) .. yours isn't

FWIW, Hoya changed their logo, so I guess it's possible that they might have altered that aspect of their newer production runs. After all, if it *is* a fake, why would they put so much efford into replicating the filter and box, but then do something stupid like using a version of the logo that Hoya themselves don't put on their lenses?

Bear in mind the photo with the close-up of the writing has been sharpened a bit, which I suspect may have a (minor) effect.

The thickness thing does sound strange, yes. AFAIK the (C) version is meant to be compact.

 

[HoppyUK]

Have to admit that I'd wondered about that. Maybe I expected even more reduction of the reflection than I got, and I have had what appeared to be glare in one photo, though I wouldn't want to overstate that!



Yeah, I appreciate that Hoya sell some higher end ones.

Jessops sell both including the HMC version and the (supposedly) better SHMC version at the same price, though the latter is a "web exclusive".

Still, according to this filters test, the HMC came in above some supposedly superior Hoya filters. Not clear whether those are the same as the ones we were discussing though.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback from everyone. It looks like it's genuine, thanks.



Edit; Just one thing. I noticed that this filter had what appeared to be some minor flaws (scratches?) in the coating. Hoya imply that the coating on their filters is relatively tough

"Also, the coating on some filters [by implication not Hoya's!] is “painted” on or applied as a cold spray that wares off or can even flake off easily."

Yet I was able to make marks on the coating at the edge of this filter using very little pressure with a wooden toothpick. Hmm.

Quality coatings, and surely all Hoya's have that, are very tough...

On the other hand, what do you want a UV filter for anyway? I won't repeat the ton of stuff on this subject (please search) but I wouldn't use one anyway unless it was really vital for urgent protection - just use a lens hood, much better.

 

[Yardbent]

putting your filter alongside mine on the screen, your lettering is quite poor quality..?

 

[arad85]

I don't think it matters whether it's genuine or not - the impression I get is whether it is good enough to use it for protection. Try taking a variety of pictures with the filter on and off. A variety of colours, anywhere you might get flare (sun just out of the corner of the frame). Preferably, take pictures with the lens wide open and at various zoom lengths. Check the quality of the bokeh (the out of focus areas), the exposure and colour rendition.

If there is any noticeable difference, then don't use the filter. If you can't see any difference - or if you can but you think the tradeoff is worth the extra protection, don't use it.

FWIW, I binned a filter for my 70-200 as it clearly affected the image. I still use a filter on the 24-105 as I can't tell when photos have been taken with it off or on.

 

[Macrosaurus]

Quality coatings, and surely all Hoya's have that, are very tough...

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't expect a visible effect from some light pressing with a wooden toothpick.

On the other hand, what do you want a UV filter for anyway?

Primarily lens protection for general use- I don't see that a hood would serve the same purpose from that point-of-view. (I don't see that it does the same thing as filtering UV either, but I don't mean to divert this thread).

Anyway, I'm quite prepared to believe that this is the type of thing people fight "holy wars" over, but that's not a can of worms I want to get into.

putting your filter alongside mine on the screen, your lettering is quite poor quality..?

As I said, my photo was sharpened, and it looks okay (i.e. relatively crisp) in real life. I'll photograph it again when I'm not at work.

I don't think it matters whether it's genuine or not - the impression I get is whether it is good enough to use it for protection. Try [testing it]. If there is any noticeable difference, then don't use the filter. If you can't see any difference - or if you can but you think the tradeoff is worth the extra protection, don't use it.

I accept that performance is ultimately what's important- I chose Hoya as they are generally accepted to have some of the best performance.

The problem with your suggestion is if there's any doubt to the filter's authenticity (as there is here). All that time spent testing simply tells us the performance limits of what might be some random mediocre filter.

It doesn't tell us whether I would run into the same problems with a genuine Hoya, or whether that would give better performance overall. At least with a Hoya, if I have problems, I know I'm unlikely to do better with a cheapo filter.

Didn't mean to make so much fuss over a simple filter for a kit lens, but I was curious, and this now looks dubious!

 

[odd jim]

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't expect a visible effect from some light pressing with a wooden toothpick.



Primarily lens protection for general use- I don't see that a hood would serve the same purpose from that point-of-view. (I don't see that it does the same thing as filtering UV either, but I don't mean to divert this thread).

Anyway, I'm quite prepared to believe that this is the type of thing people fight "holy wars" over, but that's not a can of worms I want to get into.



As I said, my photo was sharpened, and it looks okay (i.e. relatively crisp) in real life. I'll photograph it again when I'm not at work.



I accept that performance is ultimately what's important- I chose Hoya as they are generally accepted to have some of the best performance.

The problem with your suggestion is if there's any doubt to the filter's authenticity (as there is here). All that time spent testing simply tells us the performance limits of what might be some random mediocre filter.

It doesn't tell us whether I would run into the same problems with a genuine Hoya, or whether that would give better performance overall. At least with a Hoya, if I have problems, I know I'm unlikely to do better with a cheapo filter.

Didn't mean to make so much fuss over a simple filter for a kit lens, but I was curious, and this now looks dubious!

You know UV filters on DSLR's are of no use (filter wise) dont you? Digital sensors don't need UV filtration (they have one built into the high pass filter over the sensor) and digital sensors dont suffer from UV rays.

UV filters were designed for film.

You're better off ditching this, and using a hood. Anything strong enough to damage the front element will shatter the filter on route, though I acknowledge using a good quality protection filter is useful in harsh environments (war zones, spitting competitions and rallys).

But with regards to the filer itself, the coating should not come off or mark.

 

[Macrosaurus]

You know UV filters on DSLR's are of no use

Thanks for pointing that out. To be honest, I think I had half wondered this at some stage, but as it was bought for protection, it wasn't something I gave too much thought to(!)

You're better off ditching this, and using a hood.

Unfortunately, I can't leave a hood on all the time, and I have the option of removing the UV filter if I want to.

Anything strong enough to damage the front element will shatter the filter on route

True, but the filter was intended for protection from (e.g.) scratches in casual use, not to stop a speeding bullet.

(Er, actually if a speeding bullet was going through my filter, the camera would be the least of my worries!)

Anyway, as I said, can of worms.

But with regards to the filer itself, the coating should not come off or mark.

Had another look and yesterday's "marks" on the coating disappared with off with a cloth (so... yeah) and I notice the pinkish tone of the "damaged" area was similar to where I deliberately placed a fingerprint on the filter

That said, there are still a couple of marks that *don't* come off with the cloth. Not a problem in themselves (especially *not* the one at the edge), just not something I'd expect from a Hoya?





Plus, close-up of the text without sharpening (as I promised above). Note that the "lines" on the text are the lines on the filter itself if you look closely, not lo-res jaggy text.



Anyway, maybe I've bored you all enough with this filter

 

[odd jim]

We'll leave that can of worm closed (and concentrate on matters in hand!), lol!

I've bought a few filters I know are genuine from Amazon (x2 Hoya Pro 1 CPLs), but they are all from Amazon direct (rather than a re-seller). I know you said in your first post you bought it from the Amazon market place which I assume means a re-seller. Do you know which one it was? Amazon are normally pretty good at weeding out the re-sellers who supply knock offs though...

 

[Macrosaurus]

I've bought a few filters I know are genuine from Amazon (x2 Hoya Pro 1 CPLs), but they are all from Amazon direct (rather than a re-seller). I know you said in your first post you bought it from the Amazon market place which I assume means a re-seller.

Yes, they were bought from a reseller, and I was aware of that beforehand.

I'd much rather have bought from Amazon for that reason (I doubt Amazon would ever sell fakes!) but the closest match available from them still had a 1-to-2 month lead time.

Do you know which one it was? Amazon are normally pretty good at weeding out the re-sellers who supply knock offs though...

To be honest, it wouldn't be fair of me to start mentioning names until I was confident beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't genuine. Mud tends to stick even if the accusations turn out to be ultimately baseless.

 

[odd jim]

True, though I didn't want to name and shame just judge the customer feedback. If it's high I doubt they'll be selling fakes.

 

[jm2]

They never seem to get the printing right on the copies,

 

[Macrosaurus]

True, though I didn't want to name and shame just judge the customer feedback. If it's high I doubt they'll be selling fakes.

The feedback was near-perfect good with nothing there to suggest they might be selling dodgy filters.

They never seem to get the printing right on the copies,

Problem is, mine doesn't look like either of those.