lens filter...
- Thread starter CURAHEE
- Start date
- Status
smallaperture
Senior Member
Cheesecake said:hmmm...
what's wrong with a Hoya UV?
we are just talking about a UV filter here aren't we?
i doubt anyone can see any difference between a picture taken using a B&W UV to one taken with a Hoya UV. otherwise, it is simply forking out more $$ in exchange for perhaps, a greater 'peace of mind'?
and pictures taken with HMC or non-HMC, really, who can tell the difference?
if u can afford the better goods in life, in this case a B&W or Nikon UV filter, and believe that they will improve ur photos more so than a normal UV filter, then go ahead and buy them. :thumbsup:
Between the HMC and the single coated ordinary filter, the difference is in the amount of light transmission. I recommend you to read Hoya's website that explains what you're missing with a single coated filter.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
smallaperture said:
yes i know.
that is what they all claim. it is(could be) scientifically proven by all their lab tests and experiments. true. that is what they want u to believe in, and in doing so, fork out more $$ for their glass. i think this is called 'marketing'.
and if i were to have my own website, of course i will put in all the good words and even the 'false good words' about myself and my products. isn't that so?
but what i'm saying is that yeah, if it does give u better photographic results and set ur mind at ease, then do go ahead and get that SHMC/HMC filters.
but really, with our naked eye, we won't be able to tell the difference between a picture taken with SHMC/HMC to a normal coated UV filter.
Guys,
Can we say that the main problems of a 'cheap' filter may be to induce flare and ghosting when shooting against the light? If that is so, then no problems with my 'cheap' Hoya filter.
I can't see any resolution or quality decrement with A/B comparison of 2 images, one with filter on and one without, from 2.8 - 11 at wide and telephoto. (tamron 28-75). Though the lens sucks at 75mm @ f2.8 and becomes ok only after f3.5.
Can we say that the main problems of a 'cheap' filter may be to induce flare and ghosting when shooting against the light? If that is so, then no problems with my 'cheap' Hoya filter.
I can't see any resolution or quality decrement with A/B comparison of 2 images, one with filter on and one without, from 2.8 - 11 at wide and telephoto. (tamron 28-75). Though the lens sucks at 75mm @ f2.8 and becomes ok only after f3.5.
smallaperture
Senior Member
Cheesecake said:
If you're using expensive glass like any of those "pro" lenses with big apertures like F1.8 or F2.8, it makes sense to use HMC to match those multi-coated glass in the lens. On a cheapo lens like the Nikkor 28-80G or the 70-300G, it would be overkill to use a SHMC fliter. It's like wearing a 20k Rolex and driving a junk 20 year old Daihatsu Charade. (would-be robbers would bet that the Rolex is a fake)
On a similar note, what about lens hood. Under average conditions, you will not be able to see any difference, with and without hood. When you have bright sunshine on the filter, you will start to see the difference.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
smallaperture said:
its up to u to believe in their 'marketing' talk.
like i said, if its about feeling better, setting ur heart at ease, then by all means, get the SHMC or HMC filters.
a normal UV filter will do for me, thank you very much, irregardless of any lens that i use.
so for those who really want to know about UV filters and their HMC/SHMC counter-parts and how they will affect ur photographs, or if there's any affect at all to the naked eye, or even, to find out more about how to use filters creatively and their individual functions, i recommend this book which is available from the National Library in Stamford Road.
Photographers' Guide to Filters by Lee Frost.
read it and understand the hype over the UV filters and as well as creative uses for other genres of filters.
highly recommended. :thumbsup:
smallaperture
Senior Member
Cheesecake said:
Yeah, got to grab that book before the Red Brick Block goes under the hydraulic hammer and then, it's gone. Wonder if the book is on sale. Now, I know those Cokin filters do not have coatings at all. Maybe, it is just the feel-good factor, or just the kia-su thing. Lens hood is somewhat the same.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
smallaperture said:
ya, i've been searching for this book and other titles from Kinokuniya, Times...etc. but in vain.
most of the good books are not in print anymore, u can't get them from Basheer bookstore too.
what a shame...
Oh manz, where u guys get those Cheap filters (8bucks and suchS)? I aint rich, but after reading up, i guess cant relay on those too cheap ones.... but online 2nd hand filters in Singapore are like sold 1-2dollars off their Retail Prices, while those rare cheap sales of 2nd hand filters are usually gotten by others first.... If u guys got any filters for sale, do let me know hehee 
great.... i am terribly confused after reading this thread.
currently using a vitacon UV filter on my lens... now i duno if its safe to use it anymore...
can anyone tell me if its really ok to use such a filter? cos tml i going to do my first shoot with my first cam... and as u guessed, i am a newbie...
currently using a vitacon UV filter on my lens... now i duno if its safe to use it anymore...
can anyone tell me if its really ok to use such a filter? cos tml i going to do my first shoot with my first cam... and as u guessed, i am a newbie...
there's a shop selling $25 67mm Multicoated Kenko UV filters on the 2nd floor.... think it's Alex Photo. might be a good alternative to Hoya HMC or SHMC.
btw, 67mm UV filters are used on 2 rather popular Canon lenses - 24-85 and 70-200 F4L. but the reason for current shortage is the D70 kit ;p
btw, 67mm UV filters are used on 2 rather popular Canon lenses - 24-85 and 70-200 F4L. but the reason for current shortage is the D70 kit ;p
smallaperture
Senior Member
mpenza said:
I believe Kenko should be the same as Hoya, being under the same umbrella, but with different name only. Do they have 77mm and 82mm?
smallaperture
Senior Member
Looks like there are 2 extremes:
A Those who stick on any junk piece of glass in front of their lens. Cheap and good, and they do not see, feel or smell any differences in the results.
B Those who get top of the range B+W or Nikon filters, the best to match their expensive piece of glass they have. Of course there are ample reason to do so, as each piece of element in the lens is multi-coated, so the very front piece, and somewhat the most important piece must have to be at least 3 coats on both sides.
For me, middle of the road, just HMC good enough. Well, there is no end to this debate. I suppose the use of the lens hood is somewhat similar.
A Those who stick on any junk piece of glass in front of their lens. Cheap and good, and they do not see, feel or smell any differences in the results.
B Those who get top of the range B+W or Nikon filters, the best to match their expensive piece of glass they have. Of course there are ample reason to do so, as each piece of element in the lens is multi-coated, so the very front piece, and somewhat the most important piece must have to be at least 3 coats on both sides.
For me, middle of the road, just HMC good enough. Well, there is no end to this debate. I suppose the use of the lens hood is somewhat similar.
Has anyone have any experience with singh ray circular pol filter?(The Gold-N-BlueTM Polarizer - found in http://www.singh-ray.com/goldnblue.html).
Thanks
Thanks
- Status
Similar threads
