UV filter, is the brand really important for your DSLR lens ??

[igmolinav]

I was offered the following three filter brands by a retailer for my nikon D50 camera lens:

Hama, price 22
Hoya, price 36
Rodenstock, price 44

The price is for a 52 mm. UV filter. I am buying it in Germany. Is Hama too bad of a filter, don´t know anything about Hoya, and Rodenstock is well renowned but pricier ???

What do you recommend me to do, what and where would be a good option to buy, if you know of a dealer in Europe please let me know.

Thank you,

igmolinav

 

[virividox]

please do a thread search b4 posting

that said, filters dont really matter all that much if they are just uv - most even generic ones are multicoated

 

[Abstract]

Yeah, they're unlikely to provide you with any benefits in terms of photo quality, so you can get any UV filter.

The reason you want a multi-coated UV filter is because the better filters transmit more light. A cheap filter may only let 95% of light to reach the sensor.

 

[cookie1105]

The advice that I got on this forum once, was to stand in front of a window, with your back towards it. Hold up the UV filter and look at the glass. The less of a reflection you see in the glass the better the filter. If you can look through the glass, great. If you can see what is going on outside in the street, bad.

I sounds logical to me. The more light it transmits, the less of a reflection, the better the filter.

 

[jared_kipe]

All my UV filters, which I don't use too often, are S & W branded. Generally the brand doesn't matter so long as it is multicoated.

 

[andiwm2003]

please do a thread search b4 posting

that said, filters dont really matter all that much if they are just uv - most even generic ones are multicoated

he's referring to that thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/222127/

i use the cheapest uv filter. i don't have very expensive lenses yet, only midrange.

for important pics or pics where i expect flare i remove the filter. for most of my shots it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[ChrisA]

I was offered the following three filter brands by a retailer for my nikon D50 camera lens:

Hama, price 22
Hoya, price 36
Rodenstock, price 44

If you look just at the Hoya line you will see that they make a bunch of different quality levels. THey make a cheap single coated UV filter, a multicoated one and a "supper multicoated one. Each really is better then the next. On top of this they make a filter with both a normal tand a thinner ring. Some wide angle lenses do need the thin ring.

The Hoya SMC is about as good as they get. But maybe the others are as good? but the cheap Hoyas are about as good as any cheap generic no-name brand.

One way to select a filter is to hold it in your hand in the store with your back to an outside windw or other well lit place. Look at the fiter and see the reflection of the window in the filter. Buy the filter that has the most dim reflection.

 

[ChrisA]

The reason you want a multi-coated UV filter is because the better filters transmit more light. A cheap filter may only let 95% of light to reach the sensor.

That's close. The real reason is what happens to that 5% that is reflected? Think of the back of the filter. Light passes through the filter then strikes the lens not just the glass element but the mettle parts too. Light bounces off the lens then heads for the rear of the filter hit s that and bouces back into the lens. The light comming off the back of the filter reduces overall contrast in the image. The difference between a 95% and a 99.5% transmition rate is an order of magnitude differance in the lowering of the contrast or "flair"
So "coated" vs. "multi-coated" matters a lot if you meature the light reflected by the rear of the filter.

In the real world the only time this matters iis if you are shoting into the sun or if the sun is just outside of the frame

 

[igmolinav]

Thank you to everyone for their response ... !!!!

Thank you to everyone for their response. I only have one more question. If all of the mentioned filter brands are multicoated, is Rodenstock then a better Glass, this idea is taken from the fact that German optics, and the glass they use are known to be very sharp??

Thank you very much once again,

Ignacio.

P.S. Unfortunately, I can´t open the filter. It comes in this funny-one-time-open-package that doesn´t allow you to see, check, and compare, e.g. standing with my back against the window and holding the filter. However, as mentioned, all of them are multicoated.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm explains filters pretty in-depth.

 

[igmolinav]

Thank you very much again for your response ... !!!!

Thank you !!!

 

[rolfens]

The advice that I got on this forum once, was to stand in front of a window, with your back towards it. Hold up the UV filter and look at the glass. The less of a reflection you see in the glass the better the filter. If you can look through the glass, great. If you can see what is going on outside in the street, bad.

I sounds logical to me. The more light it transmits, the less of a reflection, the better the filter.

Great advice!
I have three UV filters. One is Hama, the second one a Cokin (ultra slim) and the last one a generic cheap filter (xs-pro1).
The Cokin filter was the most expensive one, but this one clearly reflects less light in the above test than the two others.

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

Thank you for your post : ) !!!

Kind regards,

igmolinav

 

[Apple fanboy]

All my filters are Hoya. UV (always on my lens's unless I'm using one of my ND, Polariser or graduated filters. Have them of my line up below, except the 14-24 mm and 10.5 mm due to their front elements being rather bulbous.

 

[aerok]

The best way to understand why expensive filters are better is to stack them:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

 

[phrehdd]

As a rule, digital cameras don't need UV filters as they are not impacted by UV light (unlike film). The use of such a filter might be more about protecting the front glass of a lens.

If you are going to put something between your lens and your subject, then quality does matter and the measure is not always about price. Multi-coated as a rule is better than single coated UV filters if the quality of the manufacturing is done properly.

I admit that I often think of enlargers and large format cameras when I see the name Rodenstock. Hoya and Hama are more commonly associated with lenses and smaller cameras.

You may want to do some internet research comparing the makers offerings.

I have a particular like for B and W filters as they are solidly made, have excellent glass and if the filter is going to remain for the most part on the lens, I don't want my images impaired by questionable quality. It is usually a one time investment. Some filters might get high ratings yet are difficult to clean due to the type of coating. I would suggest if you want a filter to make sure it is multicoated, has high marks for quality and is easy to clean.

 

[v3rlon]

DSLRs really do not need UV filters the way film cameras do. They work differently.

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/3077/what-you-need-to-know-about-uv-filters/

or do a search on your own. There are tons of articles.

That said, I get them for protection. In may days of SLR shooting, I have had exactly ONE UV filter 'take one for the team' when my wife fell. That one filter saved the lens and paid for every single UV filter I have purchased since 1990 or so.

 

[MCAsan]

With a digital camera our job is to capture light, as much as possible without blowing out the highlights, with our digital camera sensors. Then in post processing we can use all the data the sensor generates to create the pleasing image in our mind's eye.

A filter works by blocking some types or amounts of light. Using a filter when our job is counter intuitive when our jog is to capture as much light as possible. So a filter needs to ad some benefit to be worth the capital cost of its purchase and the loss of light levels, and maybe image quality, to be worth having it.

The only two filters that come to mind that fit the bill are a good circular polarizer and a strong neutral density filter. The CP is used to cut glare/haze from reflections of particulate in the air or off of water. The neutral density filter is used to drop the captured light level so that you get a much longer exposure. That comes in handy shooting moving water.

 

[v3rlon]

With a digital camera our job is to capture light, as much as possible without blowing out the highlights, with our digital camera sensors. Then in post processing we can use all the data the sensor generates to create the pleasing image in our mind's eye.

A filter works by blocking some types or amounts of light. Using a filter when our job is counter intuitive when our jog is to capture as much light as possible. So a filter needs to ad some benefit to be worth the capital cost of its purchase and the loss of light levels, and maybe image quality, to be worth having it.

The only two filters that come to mind that fit the bill are a good circular polarizer and a strong neutral density filter. The CP is used to cut glare/haze from reflections of particulate in the air or off of water. The neutral density filter is used to drop the captured light level so that you get a much longer exposure. That comes in handy shooting moving water.

Yes, but humans (unless the lens of their eyes are removed - see aphakia) don't see ultraviolet light, an even if they could, the digital sensor doesn't. That part is an artifact of film days.

So, unless you are a predatory species that hunts only on the hottest days of the year, you probably won't miss this any more that the 40,000 hz tones not being captured by your 20-20,000hz microphone.

 

[thekev]

I admit that I often think of enlargers and large format cameras when I see the name Rodenstock. Hoya and Hama are more commonly associated with lenses and smaller cameras.

I think of eyeglasses.

DSLRs really do not need UV filters the way film cameras do. They work differently.

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/3077/what-you-need-to-know-about-uv-filters/

or do a search on your own. There are tons of articles.

That said, I get them for protection. In may days of SLR shooting, I have had exactly ONE UV filter 'take one for the team' when my wife fell. That one filter saved the lens and paid for every single UV filter I have purchased since 1990 or so.

I don't recall a significant difference even on film. I can't remember them ever being strongly suggested for anything other than lens front element protection.

 

[Phrasikleia]

This sums it up rather perfectly:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

 

[phrehdd]

This sums it up rather perfectly:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387

I appreciated the author's desire to show some differences but truly it was a very flawed test. The Tiffen Haze 2 filter is not nearly the same as a UV filter or a skylight filter. The choice of light source doesn't lend itself for testing any extended haze filter (Tiffen also has a haze 1 filter).

A typical UV filter absorbs a certain percentage of UV light and a skylight does a bit more but also has a mild warming effect. The Tiffen Haze 2 filter is more fit for ocean areas and higher altitudes. I am not even sure why the author biased the results by throwing that particular filter into the mix. Why not compare apples to apples?

 

[benoitgphoto]

You want a filter to protect your lens, go with a NC (neutral color) filter instead. UV filters can mess the white balance filtering out too much "blue light" and deliver a yellowish whites. If you shoot in RAW, you can fix the wb in pp but even that, some persons like me like to have the right WB out of the camera.

Also, really a filter to protect the lens is useless. Make sure you keep the lens hood on the lens all the time and you get the best protection needed and you get the benefits of the hood at the same time.

 

[MCAsan]

Also, really a filter to protect the lens is useless. Make sure you keep the lens hood on the lens all the time and you get the best protection needed and you get the benefits of the hood at the same time.

Exactly!!! A hood is included with better lenses. If you have to purchase a hood, it should be cheaper than a good glass filter of any type. A hood can not denigrate the image quality...like a poor glass filter can.

 

[v3rlon]

Exactly!!! A hood is included with better lenses. If you have to purchase a hood, it should be cheaper than a good glass filter of any type. A hood can not denigrate the image quality...like a poor glass filter can.

Except the hood didn't and the filter did, in my specific case. It might be a case of winning the evil lottery, but like I said earlier, it paid for every single filter I have put on every single lens in one shot. A neutral glass might be a better option, true.