UV filter: Hoya or B+W?

S

SkyQPic

Messages
51
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm looking for a UV filter to protect my lens...although my lens is not that expensive but since I will be using it for quite a long time like 3-4 years, I want to buy a good UV filter to protect it...

I've compared quite a lot and finally I'm choosing from the following 3:

1. B + W Filter 67mm UV Filter With Multi Resistant Coating(MRC) and its price on Amazon is £34.99;



2. Hoya 67mm HD Digital UV(0) Screw in Filter, price: £35-36;

3.B + W 67mm UV Filter Multi Resistant Coated Slim and price £59;


Q1:confused:o the option 1 and 2 are quite similar in price and which one is better? B+W MRC one or the hoya HD (seems to be the top range in HOYA)?

Q2: Does it worth to buy the option 3 B+W slim MRC (£59) considering my lens price £300...?

My Lens is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8

Thank you very much!
 
Last edited:
SkyQPic said:
Hi,

I'm looking for a UV filter to protect my lens...although my lens is not that expensive but since I will be using it for quite a long time like 3-4 years, I want to buy a good UV filter to protect it...

I've compared quite a lot and finally I'm choosing from the following 3:

1. B + W Filter 67mm UV Filter With Multi Resistant Coating(MRC) and its price on Amazon is £34.99;



2. Hoya 67mm HD Digital UV(0) Screw in Filter, price: £35-36;

3.B + W 67mm UV Filter Multi Resistant Coated Slim and price £59;


Q1:confused:o the option 1 and 2 are quite similar in price and which one is better? B+W MRC one or the hoya HD (seems to be the top range in HOYA)?

Q2: Does it worth to buy the option 3 B+W slim MRC (£59) considering my lens price £300...?

My Lens is the Tamron 17-50 F2.8

Thank you very much!
Click to expand...

I went for a B+W UV MRC filter on one of my lenses, and when compared with the Hoya equivalent, i find the B+W filter appears to show very little difference to a photo compared with the Hoya. Granted that the lens in question is a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, and therefore a £50.00 filter doesn't seem as painful as it would on a £300.00 lens, but you do pay your money, and take your choice!
 
Last edited:
SkyQPic said:
Hi,

I'm looking for a UV filter to protect my lens...
Click to expand...

If that is all you want to do - buy a lens hood. Putting another piece of glass in front of the lens when it isn't needed for a photographic reason doesn't make sense - as I now see :bonk:

I always used a UV filter ('cos everyone said it was good !) until I did some completed unrelated test shots to compare two different makes of lenses. I then discovered that the UV filter was markedly degrading the quality of the photographs taken with the same lens when the filter was fitted.
It wasn't a cheapo filter either, it was a pricey Hoya. Now in the bin !
 
wilko said:
I went for a B+W UV MRC filter on one of my lenses, and when compared with the Hoya equivalent, i find the B+W filter appears to show very little difference to a photo compared with the Hoya. Granted that the lens in question is a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, and therefore a £50.00 filter doesn't seem as painful as it would on a £300.00 lens, but you do pay your money, and take your choice!
Click to expand...

Hi, thank you very much for your reply!

According to Amazon, the non-slim one is £35 and the slim one cost £59...which one did you get? do they make much difference on the same lens?

Thank you!
 
Moonrakerz said:
If that is all you want to do - buy a lens hood. Putting another piece of glass in front of the lens when it isn't needed for a photographic reason doesn't make sense - as I now see :bonk:

I always used a UV filter ('cos everyone said it was good !) until I did some completed unrelated test shots to compare two different makes of lenses. I then discovered that the UV filter was markedly degrading the quality of the photographs taken with the same lens when the filter was fitted.
It wasn't a cheapo filter either, it was a pricey Hoya. Now in the bin !
Click to expand...

Hi, thank you for your post here. I have a lens hood but I still think it is safer to get a UV filter... I thought the UV filter will reduce the sharpness of the picture but not much... Do you have some pictures for the comparison?

Thanks!
 
SkyQPic said:
Hi, thank you very much for your reply!

According to Amazon, the non-slim one is £35 and the slim one cost £59...which one did you get? do they make much difference on the same lens?

Thank you!
Click to expand...

I have the slim MRC filter. really rate it. It seems to give marginally clearer pictures than my Hoya one does? It's true what people say, though - try getting away without using one if you can, but for peace of mind, i prefer to use one rather than risk scratching the exposed front element.
 
wilko said:
I have the slim MRC filter. really rate it. It seems to give marginally clearer pictures than my Hoya one does? It's true what people say, though - try getting away without using one if you can, but for peace of mind, i prefer to use one rather than risk scratching the exposed front element.
Click to expand...

Hi, thank you very much.

Have you ever tried the B+W non-slim MRC one?

Thanks!

I'm now choosing between option 1 and 3...£25 difference...
 
No. never tried the thinner filter. cheaper but i believe the thinner one is better if using on wide angle lenses
 
SkyQPic said:
I thought the UV filter will reduce the sharpness of the picture but not much... Do you have some pictures for the comparison?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Luckily I did keep two of the shots. Can you PM me with an e-mail address and I will upload them to USendIt, then you can download them from there full size.

The two shots were taken from a tripod with same settings on camera, they were taken as long as it took me to replace/remove the filter apart. They received the same degree of manual "tweaks" in Elements, so I do think they do provide a valid comparison.
I actually took about four or five shots all told but only kept these two, all were similar in the differences.
 
Moonrakerz said:
Luckily I did keep two of the shots. Can you PM me with an e-mail address and I will upload them to USendIt, then you can download them from there full size.

The two shots were taken from a tripod with same settings on camera, they were taken as long as it took me to replace/remove the filter apart. They received the same degree of manual "tweaks" in Elements, so I do think they do provide a valid comparison.
I actually took about four or five shots all told but only kept these two, all were similar in the differences.
Click to expand...

why not stick them up on here so we can all see?
 
wilko said:
How much dearer is the B+W filter compared to the equivalent Hoyas in that test???? Almost the same money over here. The good thing i have noticed about the B+W MRC filter is how much easier it is to clean compared to the Hoya filters i have.
Click to expand...

I'd say this was a very important issue when choosing a filter.

There's no point in spending loads on a very good quality filter that attracts dust and fingerprints like **** attracts flies and doesn't come clean.

I only use a filter on one of my lenses now. It's on my 24-70mm and it's behind a hood which is secured with gaffer tape and that's because that's the lens that will be on my camera when I'm in situations where I'm likely to need/want something infront of my front element. My 80-200mm just has a hood permanently attached. I don't use front lenscaps.

The filter I use is a Nikon L37C which I got from an Oxfam for a tenner.

I have no idea whether it's coated or not but I presume not by how easily the bottom of my t-shirt cleans it up and the fact that it would have been a £70 or 80 filter when new means I'v never felt the need to do tests with it on and off to see if it's affecting my images.
 
wilko said:
why not stick them up on here so we can all see?
Click to expand...

Full size ?

They are here to download if you wish:

http://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd1RGwrUzdUME94dnc9PQ

http://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd1RGwrZ2prYUEwTVE9PQ

Actually, on this subject. I have just remembered something;
I thought that the filter was about 3 years old - it wasn't, it actually managed to unscrew itself (about 12 momths ago) and fell out and broke itself ! It was supposedly there to protect the main lens and it commits suicide ! Both were Hoya.
 
Last edited:
Moonrakerz said:
Full size ?

They are here to download if you wish:

http://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd1RGwrUzdUME94dnc9PQ

http://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd1RGwrZ2prYUEwTVE9PQ

Actually, on this subject. I have just remembered something;
I thought that the filter was about 3 years old - it wasn't, it actually managed to unscrew itself (about 12 momths ago) and fell out and broke itself ! It was supposedly there to protect the main lens and it commits suicide ! Both were Hoya.
Click to expand...

It is really not a perfect comparison. The composition is slightly different, and no 2 is focused on the nearby car, the 1 - on the house?
 
daugirdas said:
It is really not a perfect comparison. The composition is slightly different, and no 2 is focused on the nearby car, the 1 - on the house?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify my problem with the UV filter - there was a distinct milky cast over the photograph, lots of tweaking in PSE did reduce the effect but, to me, it remained visible.

I took lots of photographs and the same "fault" showed in all of them. The milky cast was apparent on any shot, regardless of the view/composition/subject/lighting/focus point.
Obviously, the cast varied in its "noticeability" due to the subject matter.

I really do think that the UV filter requirement has become a bit of an "old wives tale" for this day and age.
With film there was some case for using one in certain areas, with digital that really has gone out of the window.
Physical protection of the prime lens ? Well over-hyped, in my opinion.

If you Google this subject there are lots of pros and cons - but most of the pros seem to be based on "they've always been used".

This one seems to sum up the pros and cons quite well:

http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm

It may well be that it is possible that a really good (expensive) filter when fitted to a really good (expensive) lens MAY cause problems due to various physical properties of the two - distance apart and light reflection/refraction in that intermediate space. A cheap filter on a cheap lens may be perfect - purely due to the different physical properties of that combination.

I don't use that filter/lens combination any more anyway. My tests for a totally different reason brought this to my attention, and certainly dissuaded me (along with web research) from spending £100 or so for a 72mm UV filter for the new lens. I bought a Black Rapid strap with what I saved .......now, that IS good :)
 
The image quality problem with filters is flare and ghosting, not sharpness. And even the very best ones cause that under some circumstances - ghosting of bright lights can be bad. But if you want the best of both, don't use a filter. A lens hood is very effective protection, especially from you own finger marks that are often the most likely culprits. And a hood might even improve image quality.

On the other hand, if there is a real danger of something nasty hitting the lens, then protection is obviously prudent. Most of the top end jobbies have that easy-clean type coating, which does make life easier.

If it was me, I'd get a Hoya HD protector. Keep it in your bag, and only use it when necessary.
 
HoppyUK said:
The image quality problem with filters is flare and ghosting, not sharpness. And even the very best ones cause that under some circumstances - ghosting of bright lights can be bad. But if you want the best of both, don't use a filter. A lens hood is very effective protection, especially from you own finger marks that are often the most likely culprits. And a hood might even improve image quality.

On the other hand, if there is a real danger of something nasty hitting the lens, then protection is obviously prudent. Most of the top end jobbies have that easy-clean type coating, which does make life easier.

If it was me, I'd get a Hoya HD protector. Keep it in your bag, and only use it when necessary.
Click to expand...

Hi,
Thank you! But why Hoya HD other than B+W MRC?

Thanks
 
SkyQPic said:
Hi,
Thank you! But why Hoya HD other than B+W MRC?

Thanks
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal, but Hoya are the biggest glass manufacturer in the world and generally make the best filters, and they tend to be a bit cheaper than the German ones but not always. HD is top of their range with a few nice extra features like very tough glass and easy-clean coatings.

That's not to say that B+W etc are not as good.
 
Digital cameras don't require UV filters, so I'm assuming you want the filter for physical protection? No comment on that, entirely up to you.

B & W may have the edge, but Hoya Pro/HD are excellent. I doubt if you will find much, if any, difference in the real world.

I liked your comment about using the lens for "quite a long time like 3 - 4 years". I shot Nikon in my film days, and my Nikkors are about 30 years old. Just nicely run in now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top