Hoya filters - Comparisons of Quality?


jeallen01

Link Posted 23/05/2011 - 20:10
Hi Folks

Three of my better lenses (Sigma 10-20, F4.5-5.6, Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO, and Pentax 55-300DA) are now fitted with Hoya Pro Digital MC UV filters - and they seem to make virtually no (if any) difference to the image quality.

However the s/h 100-300mm F4 Pentax (thanks Lenny Boy & friend Ian) came with a standard Hoya Skylight1(B) filter, and I am wondering if it is worth the not-inconsiderable cost of replacing that with the 82mm diameter Pro Digital version. The main use for the lens will be for the K-5 at airshows and the like where the lens is used fairly wide open to allow high shutter speeds.

Any comments/experience would be welcomed, as would suggestions for other filters?
I am aware of B&W, etc., but have never used them)

John
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Last Edited by jeallen01 on 23/05/2011 - 20:11

simonkit

Link Posted 23/05/2011 - 20:36
Hi,

To be completely honest I wouldn't waste your cash unless you are 100% convinced that you need to "protect" your lens with a UV filter - personally I don't use them and only imagine any benefit from them when in extreme conditions.

Just my thoughts

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

doingthebobs

Link Posted 23/05/2011 - 21:27
I find lens hoods are best for protection of the front element on the longer lenses. Not so good for that on the 10-20 though.

Funnily enough they improve the pictures as well by controlling flare, so a double advantage! The only disadvantage is the extra space they take up when not on the camera.

Most of them come with the lens so a big saving on cost as well.
Bob

Anvh

Link Posted 23/05/2011 - 22:11
UV also does nothing to your photo's because UV is already filtered by most lens coatings and also by the filter infront of the sensor so it's quite useless...
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

jeallen01

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 08:12
doingthebobs wrote:
I find lens hoods are best for protection of the front element on the longer lenses. Not so good for that on the 10-20 though.

Funnily enough they improve the pictures as well by controlling flare, so a double advantage! The only disadvantage is the extra space they take up when not on the camera.

Most of them come with the lens so a big saving on cost as well.

With respect to the 10-20mm, when the GX10 strap came off and it fell on the ground, the Tiffen ND filter on the front took most of the impact and the lens was undamaged - so I have to say that that was very fortunate

Also filters do keep general "muck", especially dust, off the front elements - so I think I will carry on using them, in one form or another!

K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)

jeallen01

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 08:15
OK, if no-one thinks that UV filters are useful from a performance perspective, and yet I still want to keep some protection over the front element, has anyone any suggestions for "clear filters" with good quality optical glass?

John
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)

simonkit

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 09:44
jeallen01 wrote:
OK, if no-one thinks that UV filters are useful from a performance perspective, and yet I still want to keep some protection over the front element, has anyone any suggestions for "clear filters" with good quality optical glass?

John

I own Hoya polarising filters and have always found them excellent so have tended to stick with them - Kenko are made by Hoya and are generally slightly cheaper but of the same quality, can be difficult to source though
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link
Last Edited by simonkit on 24/05/2011 - 09:44

johnriley

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 15:23
The best protection for the front element is proper care in use and a lens hood. As has been noted many times, a filter that shatters will likely scratch the front element anyway. A lens hood will take the first knock and thus protect the lens.
Best regards, John

jeallen01

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 17:12
johnriley wrote:
The best protection for the front element is proper care in use and a lens hood. As has been noted many times, a filter that shatters will likely scratch the front element anyway. A lens hood will take the first knock and thus protect the lens.

johnriley wrote:
The best protection for the front element is proper care in use and a lens hood. As has been noted many times, a filter that shatters will likely scratch the front element anyway. A lens hood will take the first knock and thus protect the lens.

John

As for the lenshood, well maybe, and maybe not!

My experience shows that it is a LOT easier to lose a hood that is bayonet fitted (as most modern brand hoods are, and I have lost several) than it is to lose a filter which is generally screwed in place - then you have no protection. Also they can get dropped in the Sh*t when being fitted, and the Sh*t won't help the condition of the lens elements then!

And, as I said above, my experience is the rim of the filter is as likely as anything to take the impact as is the optical element itself (Never had the latter happen in a lot of years, but I have had discolouration and damage to front elements when they were not thus protected) - so the filter thread on the lens is less likely to be damaged (the Sigma was not damaged at all).

Regards
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)

johnriley

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 17:50
I have never had a Pentax bayonet lens hood that has been loose, fallen off or been anything else but solid.

Also, the lens hoods that are plastic will absorb impact up to a point without damage. A metal rim filter has no give, so will transmit all the impact to the lens.

However, this is all very clumsy and I do not routinely expect any impacts at all. In fact, so far in several decades there haven't been any.
Best regards, John

alexfilipov

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 18:04
I too will disagree that a hood/proper care in use is the best protection in any case - I often shoot IPSC (handgun/rifle)competitions and sometimes get a hit from a ricochet of a bullet particle or a spent shell. All the lenses I shoot with are protected with UV filters, which are unlikely to be broken by the impact but nevertheless I do not want to risk a scratch on the front element. I must admit though that I never use filters outside the shooting range.

johnriley

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 18:06
A hood is also not the best protection when faced with salt spray, but we are talking about general situations.
Best regards, John

doingthebobs

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 18:16
I'd imagine a polycarbonate filter would be best for bullet fragments!
Does anyone do a plastic filter of optical quality?
Bob

DaveHolmes

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 18:21
jeallen01 wrote:


filters do keep general "muck", especially dust, off the front elements - so I think I will carry on using them, in one form or another!

Agreed... I'd much rather accidentally scratch a £30-70 UV filter than a £200-700 lens...

I now use Hoya UV's (they come off when using polarizers or ND's) on all my lenses and am yet to notice any loss in image quality...

In terms of flair (most of) my lenses are also fitted with hoods as well...

I do take off and reverse hoods when in transit however and think it is here when UV (or protection filters) are also pretty useful... Lens caps do occasionally come off in the bag and although my bag is generally pretty tidy sometimes you need to pack up and leave in a hurry, and thing can rattle around inside... UV's mean even if the cap comes off, the front element of the lens is protected from other items in the bag...

I know many will disagree in this thinking... UV filters are consistently a contentious issue on photography forums... But they work for me... So if people ask why... I'll most likely tell 'em...
Don't buy cheap ebay UV's... Hoya do a few variants... their mid-range coated ones cause me no loss in IQ... Those are what I use (49mm £30ish... 67mm £60ish)
........................................................................
Digital:
Pentax K5- Vivitar 19mm 3.8; FA35mm f2; D-Xenon 100mm macro f2.8; DA50-200mm WR...
Flash:
Yongnuo YN-560; Vivitar 285HV; Cactus V4 triggers...
Film:
Pentax-MX & M50mm f1.4; Spottie & 55mm f1.8; MG & M40mm 2.8...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveholmesphotos/

Anvh

Link Posted 24/05/2011 - 18:54
jeallen01 wrote:
then you have no protection.

The front element and the coatings today (also 30 or 40 years ago) are designed to take a beating.
Also any filter will degrade the image quality, there is no escaping that even if you buy the best (if you see it is another thing though ).

I always show this movie for the ones that aren't confincent, now try that with a filter in front...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

And here is a read about this.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Quote:
In the old days, often the objectives (front elements) of lenses were made out of glass so soft that merely by cleaning it overenthusiastically you could make tiny scratches on it. (Especially if –and this shows the changing of social customs over time –you were in the habit of rubbing your lens with the end of your tie, as many working photojournalists did in ye olden days when men almost always wore ties when appearing in public.) Also in past times, lenses passed UV light, which could throw off TTL (through-the-lens) light meters and/or cause film to respond in weird ways.

The solution seemed both elegant and sensible: use a UV filter to both cut the UV transmission and protect the objective from scratches. That's been a part of photography's "received wisdom" ever since.

Here's the news flash, though, although it's not exactly news, since it's been true for a good long while now: good modern lenses have very hard glass objectives, and/or scratch-resistant coatings. They make it difficult to scratch or mar a lens. With reasonable care, and perhaps a decent lens hood for physical protection if the objective is not recessed, there is almost no chance you will scratch the objective of your lens. Empirically, this is confirmed when you survey used lenses for sale. How many do you find that are scratched? How many eBay auctions for lenses don't say "glass mint" or "glass perfect"? Don't overestimate lens owners: if it were so easy to scratch up a lens, there would be a lot more scratched lenses out there than there are.


Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 24/05/2011 - 18:55
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.