Nikon vs. Hoya filters for 18-200mm zoom

 

<p>I just purchased a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II telephoto zoom lens. Should I purchase Nikon or Hoya filters to protect the lens? I want to purchase the best filters for sharpness and quality. Also, I've heard so many pros and cons about skylight vs. UV filters VS just plain glass filters. Does anyone have any opinions on this? One last thing - which circular polarizer is best - the multi coated top of the line or is a mid range HMC circular polarizer just as good? Thanks!</p>

 

<p>I have used Hoya Multi Coated filters for years and never had one problem. Never used a Nikon filter, also use B+W and some Tiffen uncoated. Either use a good lens hood or shield any side sun rays with a hat or card, that's what causes most trouble. Sky filter has a slight pink cast, UV slight yellow (almost undetectable), Haze stronger yellow (just detectable), 81a slight amber (more for slight warming, but can work). All this said, I seldom leave filters on my lenses, but I do on the lenses I beat the most because they sometimes really get thrown around and I have a bad habit of tossing my keys in my bag and in turn whacking the lens glass (not good). Enjoy your new lens, wear the ink off of it.</p>

<p>Nancy, this topic has been discussed many many times. If I were you, I would get a decent mulit-coated Hoya filter for protection, and it would be just fine. With digital, a totally clear filter would be best; any color correction can be done in post processing. The same goes for polarizer.</p>

<p>Since you are using the 18-200, the primary limitation for sharpness is the lens itself. It is an OK lens but not the sharpest anyway. There is no point to buy the best filter to put in front of that lens. E.g., I drive an old Honda Accord; it is a decent car and gets me from point A to point B. I put good tires on it, but there is no point to buy the most expensive performance tires for a family car, especially for an old car.</p>

<p>Just make sure the filters are mutli coated.</p>

<p>I own many of each, go Hoya. Same for the C-Pol. Just get multicoated ones.</p>

<p>I have Nikon L37c UV filters (very good, very $$$), Hoya multi-coated UV and Kenko's low end coated UV filters. They're all good enough. Hoya and Kenko are both part of the THK group (Tokina, Hoya, Kenko) but the less expensive Kenko filters don't appear to be relabeled Hoya filters. I use 'em unless I'm shooting into a bright light source - sun at dawn/dusk, nighttime city scenes or moonlight. Good idea to remove 'em in those situations to minimize ghosting flare. Be sure to use the supplied lens hood as well.</p>

<p>I use Hoya Super Multicoated filters. I don't know if they are any better than Hoya HMC (their regular MC filters) but they're only a few dollars more. Why skimp on the cheap stuff?</p>

<p>A lot of people on this forum love to knock the 18-200 VR. According to Pop Photo and other tests it will produce excellent prints up to 8x10 and good prints up to 11x14. That's more than good enough for many if not most amateurs. Sharpness can be measured objectively. "Sharp enough" is totally subjective.</p>

<p>Nancy, before you even decide which brand of "protection" filters you want, you should first find out what you are trying to protect against, i.e. identify the peril. This may be your first lens and I understand it represents a major financial investment, but lenses are just tools and made to be used. IMHO, the best protection for a lens is the lens cap. Put it on when not shooting. Your second line of defence is the lens hood. Use it all the time. It not only provides protection, but does serve a useful photographic purpose, which is to cut down on glare. Finally, protection filters. It is certainly debatable whether these filters provide any protection at all. Unless you frequently photograph young kids who might likely smear ketchup or otherwise put their oily fingertips on your lens' front element, I don't see the need to stack yet another glass element on top of the 15+ elements found in most modern zoom designs. More glass means less sharpness and less light transmission. Of course PL filters and others which serve a creative or photographic purpose is a different matter. Some people might argue if you drop the lens, the filter might break instead of one of the lens elements, but OTOH the broken filter might scratch your exposed front element leading to unnecessary damage. The lens hood arguably provides more protection against drops. I am not here to advise against using any protection filter, and some people do shoot in environments that call for such protection, but you should find out if you do really need one, not just because a salesman says so. Remember these accessories such as filters represent a major profit for the retailers.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>I think you should repost your test image taken with the stacked filters mounted on a lens with the comparison image taken with no filter or one filter mounted on the same lens. I loved that comparison.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not here to advise against using any protection filter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isaac, in that case I wish you simply did not post at all. You are merely recycling the same misleading information that has been posted to (and debated in) this forum over and over.</p>

<p>The OP merely wants to know which brand of protection filter fits her, not whether such filter is necessary. Again, when one uses a 18-200mm super zoom, she/he is already making a lot of optical compromises. An extra filter, even a mediocre one, is not going to make any meaningful difference unless you shoot directly into the sun or other lights, in such case the 18-200 itself with so many elements is going to be a problem anyway. That was why I recommended not to buy any expensive filter in this case; it is merely a waste of money.</p>

<p>I happen to dislike the 18-200 because I am not willing to accept such optical compromises, but that lens fits a lot of people extremely well. That is also another topic.</p>

<p>P.S. Robert Hooper is referring to this thread: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa</a></p>

<p>Get a multi-coated filter at a reasonable price you can afford, put it in front of your lens and you will be just fine.</p>

<p>Thank you to all who provided their own personal insights. I really appreciate your feedback on this issue!</p>

<p>Get a Hoya multi coated filter. They are as good as the Nikon and much less expensive.<br>

I'm a strong advocate of using protective filters because I dropped my 18-200 on a sidewalk. The lens was in my camera bag, with the hood reversed and I picked up the bag and the top was not closed and the lens fell out onto the sidewalk. The Hoya filter glass broke into pieces but the lens glass was unharmed.</p>

<p>I suspect that B+W makes the best filters, but I have used Nikons, Hoyas and Promasters and none have ever given me any problems. A few years ago, when people were trading in their film cameras for digitals, I would go to the camera stores and buy virtually every filter they had, usually for $5 or less. I am slightly demented because I own over 100 film cameras, from virtually every 35mm maker except Olympus. Why not Olympus? Because I never ran into any bargains, plus my ultimate guru, Ivor Matanle, didn't like them.</p>

<p>I have both, Hoya and Nikon. Place both filters on a white piece of paper and you will see the difference. With Hoya, I see a slight color shift, but not with Nikon.</p>