Lens Filter Brands ?

<p>Hi,<br>

<br />I would like to ask about which the best brand of lens filters " Except Nikon ":</p>

<ol>

<li>Tiffen</li>

<li>B+W</li>

<li>Hoya</li>

<li>Marumi</li>

<li>Polariod</li>

<li>Sigma</li>

<li>Fotasy</li>

<li>Zeiko</li>

<li>Optika</li>

<li>Rokinon</li>

</ol>

<p>I would like to get something with a good quality and reasonable price, not too expensive, not too cheap.<br>

Also,<br>

What about the Multi-Coated Glasses!<br>

Is it better than other regulars ... ?<br>

I would like to know more ...<br>

I've got my new 28X300 Nikkor Lens and I need to get some filters for it, such as:<br>

UV, Circular Polarizer ... Etc.<br>

What about: Nutral Clear and Soft Focus ... They are so expensive from Nikon!<br>

Are they necessary to have them!<br>

<br />Appreciate your feed back and comments,<br>

<br />My Respect With Kind Regards,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, you don't want much, do you? ;)</p>

<p>There are "fanboys" for Lee, Hitech, and B+W. This makes it hard to get truly objective assessments, since people who have paid large sums for a piece of acrylic or dyed glass are not eager to hear dissent.</p>

<p>That being said, there is little doubt that some filters (in my experience, the B+W ones) are superior in optics and materials to many "lesser" breeds without the law.</p>

<p>On the other hand, there are surprisingly few objective tests to demonstrate either the practical implications of "expensive" or "cheap". (see my 'objective' review at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WWb7 ;)<br /> There is an often cited test of how much UV, certain UV filters filter, but that's not what we're talking about here.</p>

<p>If dust, scratches, or smudges on a lens often have little effect, then how much difference does a slight difference in the filter screwed onto it make? So far, an unanswered question.</p>

<p>For a personal opinion - well worth what you've paid for it - I like B+W best, but I have never seen adverse results from the better multicoated Hoya filters. I have a bunch of Tiffen filters and lesser breeds which I use less often, but frankly, you've got to be pretty good to see any difference in images based on which filter was on the lens at the time (always barring the actual piece of coke-bottle bottom, of course).</p>

<p>Just on general principles, if you're going to stick something on the front of a $1000 lens, why put a $10 filter on it? </p>

<p>And the corollary, why put a $200 filter on a lens that cost you $100?</p>

<p>Long story short: Hoya is the best value.</p>

<p>If you dig around the archives here and the Casual Photo Conversations forum you'll find previous discussions and a link to a site that tested various filters. Hoya's better filters outperformed some much more expensive filters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Are they necessary to have them!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's endlessly and tiresomely debatable.</p>

<p>I use them when photographing under or near trees. Between sap and bug effluent, it's easier to clean the sticky droplets from a filter than from a lens. Same with blood, sweat and beers at fights and nightclubs.</p>

<p>Some folks would rather use lens hoods than protective filters, and that's fine with normal and telephoto lenses. With wide angle lenses a properly fitted hood is too short to protect the front element from blowing tree sap, ocean spray, or ringside blood, sweat and spit.</p>

<p>Some of my lenses, especially my wide angles, wear protective filters by default, which I remove when conditions are safe enough. For my teles and tele zooms I keep protective filters in the bag handy in case I need them. Usually the lens hood is good enough. If I anticipated frequently cleaning a protective filter to scrape off mud and blood I'd get Kenko filters - they're part of the THK group (Tokina-Hoya-Kenko). Better than any comparably priced bargain filters I've seen, including Tiffen, and affordable enough to replace as needed.</p>

<p>Well, value is a strange thing. Lots of meanings. If you religiously, zealously keep a lens cap on your lens at all times when not using it, protective filters are probably a waste of money. Sometimes a mark can change even <em>perceived </em>value when no measurable change in functionality has occurred. I have a once-pristine Canon FD 35-105mm lens that somehow slipped its lens cap and ran off to get marred on something or other. Dead smack in the middle of the lens, a scar on the coating. It doesn't affect the image that I have seen, but if I tried to sell it the price would nose dive compared to what I paid for it.</p>

<p>As far as optical quality of a filter, well, a piece of "clear" glass will be clear whether it's a $10 or $100 piece of clear glass. If you stick with Hoya, Tiffen, or B+W you'll be happy. There are lots of things that really degrade image quality but these clear filters have negligible effect.</p>

<p>The best advice I have heard re filters is this: if you spent $1,000 on a lens, put a good quality filter on it. If you spent $100, then use a cheap one. In short, the quality of the filter should be commensurate with the quality of the lens you put it on. As noted above, Hoya, Tiffen, B+W are all quality pieces. If you have a cheap lens, go to Best Buy and buy a cheap Rocketfish filter.</p>

I'm digging BW lately. Expensive

<blockquote>

<p>In short, the quality of the filter should be commensurate with the quality of the lens you put it on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not the best advice I've ever seen. Cheap filters too often are crap, and to cripple a lens with a cheap filter because the lens wasn't expensive is robbing yourself of a lot of optical quality. And especially cheap polarisers often just do not really work. So, either get good filters, or don't bother. The price of the lens you put the filter on is not relevant.<br>

Filters serve a purpose, and you should choose them to match that purpose. With digital, the only filters that add something I cannot do easier in post-processing are a Circular Polariser and a Neutral Density filter. Now, you may not need either of these - consider first if your kind of photography has any place for them at all. All other filters, I could live without; though, as Lex, I keep UV filters on lenses which I use in bad weather or generally bad conditions (for the reasons he gave).</p>

<p>I mainly have B+W filters, they're fine. Would I need new ones, I choose between Hoya (the top-end line) and B+W Multi-coated.</p>

<p>It is not compulsory to own or use any filters. These days you can replicate the effects of nearly all coloured filters in post production. There are three exceptions you might want to consider</p>

<ol>

<li>A polarising filter</li>

<li>A UV or similar filter for which the primary objective is keeping scratches and maybe water/salt spray off the front element.</li>

<li>A neutral density filter that permits you to use longer exposures or wider apertures.</li>

</ol>

<p>Brand choice is complicated by the fact that some brands have representation in several different levels within the market. Hoya for example can be middle-priced or rather expensive depending on where you buy into their range and as a brand they are really bad at explaining their different ranges and what one offers that the others don't.</p>

<p>Personally I've settled on B+W which IMO are as good as I can buy with great glass and good mounts and good coatings that I can clean easily and which seem to stay clean better. Again they have different ranges but are not as confusing as Hoya. Heliopan are optically very close to B+W but I've had repeated issues with their mounts and filters coming loose in their mounts so I've no need to buy them again. The only issue with B+W is that they are quite expensive, and if you don't like Nikon filters ( do they make these themselves or are they made for them and rebadged?) you might not like B+W for the same reasons.<br>

Most of the other brands you mention I've never used and in several cases never heard of either. I wouldn't buy or recommend them for that reason. I have heard on Photo.net that many Tiffen filters don't use the best glass.</p>

<p>Using filters tends to increase the risk of flare. Coating the glass and in particular multicoating it, reduces that risk to an extent. Whether I'm right to do so or not, I buy multicoated filters when I can - I think certain types of filter are quite hard to find multicoated including the stronger ND filters. I like the B+W multicoating (termed MRC) because its very hard and resistant to damage, whereas the coating on some Hoyas has flaked off quite easily -though I understand from here on Photo.net that their top end products now use a much more resistant coating.</p>

<p>Like others my choice would be B+W for all three types of filter I mentioned above. If you don't want to spend so much then an informed purchase at a mid-point of the Hoya range might be what you're looking for and certainly you'll have a lot of company round there and patently not all these people are unhappy.</p>

<p>Finally two of the brands mentioned by JDM earlier are square or rectangular filters that slot into a holder that allows the filter to slide. They are especially useful for graduated ND filters, but its a bit of a laborious way to do most things. If you need them I suggest you ask a further question so as not to muddy the water here. </p>

I use Tiffen, B+W, Hoya, and Calumet (re-branded Hoya) on a regular basis. They are all fairly decent. It boils down to the

individual filter. For clear/skylight, you'll be hard pressed to find differences for the most part. ND and polarizers would be

where you might find some differnces. Even then, if you are shooting Digital and RAW, then it won't be as big of a

problem.

<p>I use B+W and Heliopan mainly because they use Schott glass in their filters which very high quality. They also tend to be multi coated.</p>

<p>As for polarisers I stick to B+W/Heliopan which are Kaseman filters. These are high efficiency polaring filters which give the ultimate quality with Schott glass. However, they are more expensive, but IMHO they are worth every penny. </p>

<p>The main thing is to go for the best quality lens that you can afford but do not then compromise its quality by using cheap filters. Cheap is not always best especially with a good quality lens.</p>

<p>Most people, myself included, start using Hoya filters which are very good as a starting point.</p>

 

<p>If you are shooting a digital camera the only filter which is really of any use is a polarizer.</p>

<p>Get the best circular you can afford and leave the rest of the "effects" to software. Not kidding.</p>

<p>Neutral density filters may be of use to some photographers whose digital cameras don't offer ISOs lower than 100.</p>

<p>A neutral density filter is useful if you want to make very long exposures or very wide apertures, for example</p>

 

<ul>

<li>To control the way waterfalls look</li>

<li>To make rivers, sea, lakes look soft or milky</li>

<li>To capture movement in clouds</li>

<li>To effectively lose people passing through your picture, or to keep the ones that are static, lose the ones that move</li>

<li>To use very wide apertures in bright conditions to influence depth of field and focus.</li>

</ul>

<p>And there's more. If you don't want to take that sort of picture then you don't need a neutral density filter. I didn't use one for years with film because the one strong enough often had vile colour casts, which now of course I can fix.</p>

<p>Let me add for the record, this excellent <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">filter testing article</a> <<< <strong><em>click</em></strong></p>