Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi,

Is there is a resource on the internet that compares the light transmission of various filters?

I have a digital camera with two expensive lenses: a Zeiss & a Tamron zoom. I am wondering if its worth getting a B+W over the Hoya.

I already have a UV Hoya that is the right size for the Zeiss, but am contemplating upgrading.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/hoy ... 59682.aspx


Plus there are also "protector" filters to consider...any help would be appreciated.

When I looked at them in the store I noticed it went like this:
B+W
Hoya
Tiffen

This has been studied endlessly but never conclusively. For the most part your rating is correct, though some Hoyas have been rated higher than B+Ws. I hate to tell you to Google but really that's the best option, you're going to have to go through the various stances until you find one you agree with.

Some, like myself, can't be bothered with filters of that type at all. Save your money for filters which help you take better pictures rather than those that make unprovable subjective claims.

Assume uv/skylight filters degrade your images and the only purpose is to protect the front element. Lens hoods also somewhat protect a lens and will improve image quality under the same conditions. Better filter coatings degrade less but usually cost more. So if you must use a filter on a quality lens get a good filter. Even B+W a quality manufacturer has different product lines brass MRC being the higher quality.

Look what I found!

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photograp ... erData.htm

I use my filters when I know my lenses might be in danger, like photographing my friends shooting guns or photographing a protest. If I'm street shooting or in the studio, I keep them off.

Are you expecting the filter to protect your lens from bullets

I only use "protective/UV" stuff at the beach otherwise I hope my lens hood does enough protecting. The only filters I use regularly are ND's and then it's their transmissive colour that I'm interested in.

Not the bullets but the shells that fly out of the chamber.

It's worth noting that every one of those manufacturers has multiple lines of quality.

Even B+W has a low-end uncoated variety and a high-end multicoated variety.

I think Hoya has 3 lines of varying quality with the worst being pretty bad and the best possibly being one of the highest quality (but most expensive) you can find.

At Vistek, last time I checked, the uncoated B+W was one of the cheaper filters there, but the "HD" series from Hoya were honestly better quality (better coating, less reflections and ghosting)

It's not as simple as brand name.

Since I've dropped lenses twice and had the filter save a $1500 lens on both occasions, I won't leave the house without them. Both my 17-35 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 lenses owe their life to a $75 filter.

How does a filter save a lens? Stop a scratch from happening on the front element? Sure. Those can be repaired though, depends on the element and the severity it might not be a big deal to repair, sometimes for less than the cost of a good filter. And, although they never make an image better a scratch on a front element is not the end of a lens' life. Save a lens though... that's a stretch. There is the potential of smacking into trees if you're a ... Kai. An ounce of prevention is worth several repair bills.

How does a filter save a lens? At the Beijing Olympics Vincent Laforet had a camera body strike the front of his other lens while on the run. He discovered that the impact had shattered the filter, but the lens itself was OK. You can see the images and a description about half way down this blog entry.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/ ... ospection/

DG

On the other hand, if you're this guy:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-14-24mm-lens-review.htm

Read the bits surrounding the dirt bike picture.

But he did point out he had no lense hood on - which would have protects the lens. And while I don't know the science of lenses I would wonder if the there was no filter would have there been any damage to the lens? I ask this because glass can take a good hit without breaking and the lens on the front is also a lot thicker and stronger then the thin glass on a filter.

Specious reasoning. Would the lens have broken without the filter? Unknown. Scratched? Probably but also unknown. Sort of like "if I hadn't been in brand x car for that crash I'd be dead" type reasoning. Really? Try it again in Y with exact parameters and let's see. Also, filters have been known to be brittle whereas front elements have shown surprising durability. Anyone remember the 50 1.8 and hammer video? It also could have cracked pretty badly of course. But, if anything, that event reinforces my advice of "an ounce of prevention is worth several repair bills" more than put a filter on so you can let your gear flop around willy-nilly.

To update everyone, I ended up buying two filters from b+h, which saved me a lot of money...as they are much more expensive at Henry's. I think Henry's must buy them from b+h then double or triple the price before selling them in Canada. They didn't charge me HST either...although perhaps that was included in the shipping/customs charges.

Next time have a look at maxsaver.net.