Rokunar a quality brand? (for UV filter and reversal/closeup rings)

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by anthony_cicero, Feb 2, 2007.

  1. A used lens I bought comes with a Rokunar UV filter and set of 3 closeup rings.

    Is this brand just another quantaray type of brand? I'd like to decide of the
    UV filter is worth using or if I should go ahead and get something with a
    stronger reputation.

    The closeup set is a bonus.
  2. Pretty much, but you may not see a lot of difference depending on the lenses you're using or what you're using the images for.
  3. It's a Nikkor 24mm AF 2.8...I don't want the filter to be a piece of junk and be a limiting factor or lower quality than the lens.

    When you say pretty much, do you mean pretty much a quality brand or pretty much just another quantaray type of brand?
  4. It's the kind of filter an amatuer camera store might sell. I'll leave it at that. You've got a great lens, so you should put a great filter on it. I used to buy only Nikon filters but they've been hard to find and out of stock. I've really had good experiences with the Hoya Super HMC filters. I also use BW and Heliopan, but they're expensive. I liked the quality of the Canon filters too. For the 24mm Nikkor, it's worth pointing out that you want a fairly thin filter ring to prevent vignetting--a problem with the 24mm's. I think the Hoyas would solve that.
  5. Since you already have the filter, you don't need to ask anyone's opinion of your UV filter. Try it. Shoot with and without it. Examine the details. Decide whether you like the results. If you're shooting digital it'll cost you nothing -- you can delete the files. If you're shooting film, it'll only cost you a roll of film and processing.

    Sometimes, you don't even have to shoot to see if a filter is no good. Tilt it until you can see what kind of reflections come off it. A 24mm doesn't take an overly large filter, but if the reflections are strong and clear enough that you might be able to shave with it, or use it to send signals to a rescue airplane, you could conclude that the anti-reflective coating is not good.

    You'll feel much more confident about your equipment if you have decided whether you like it, rather than letting someone here decide.
  6. I believe that the Rokunar filters were from the same company that produced the Rokkor lenses. Hardly poor quality!
  7. Hector, you have a point, and generally I would think the same way. I don't have anything in my hands yet (internet). If I did, I would obviously take a close hard look at it. HOWEVER, I do not think my eye is refined enough to catch issues up front, and 5 years down the line I wouldn't want to look at the photos I take today and curse the Rokunar because I didn't notice its faults when I bought it...and so it is worth it for me to buy something with an expectation of quality.

    Alex, I though that too at first, but there's no indication they are related, and in may have the same parent company as Vivitar/Komura (can I say 'ugh'?) according to . In any case, they are reputed to be low end.

    Michael, I have a Tiffen haze 2A on my piece of junk 28-80. A Hoya HMC (not Super, or Duper) UV on my 50 1.4. The thing is, both brands have the same thickness (I'm talking about the rings here)...are the Hoya Super HMC thinner than the plain old HMC? Are there any other real world benefits to Super HMC?
  8. Hector, after your comments I took a look at the filters I do have...the Tiffen Haze 2A and the Hoya HMC UV(0). There is a striking difference between the Tiffen and the Hoya. Using the reflection of a window, the Tiffen reflects much more light, the window looks solid. Actually the difference between that and the Hoya is striking. The Hoya's slight reflection of the outside window is ghostly, and looks much more like the reflections you see in the lens elements. I guess the Super HMC Hoyas are even less reflective, and the window would look even more ghostly, or not be visible at all.

    Also, the Hoya has no tint to it, and if there is any it's indectectable to me. The Tiffen, however, has a yellowish tint to it that is very noticable when held up to the window. I thought they were the same type of filter with the same purpose, but this makes me doubt that.

    It doesn't bug me too much about the Tiffen because its on a garbage 28-80 kit lens, but I'm happier with the HMC for the 50 1.4. Maybe I'll check out the Super HMC for that lens.

    Despite all this, I do not trust myself to make judgements on flare or color just yet. HMC for me...or perhaps Super.
  9. Rokunar is a brand that has been around for as long as I can remember. Most things that are truly wretched don't last too long in the marketplace, so it's probably an okay filter.

    Any piece of flat, clear glass will work for protection of the lens. Look close at the filter. Is it flat and clear? No wavy spots? Does it reflect light evenly? If so, it's okay. If it's okay, remember to remove it when you shoot pictures with a strong lightsource in the image area. Even multi-coated filters will flare under the right (wrong) circumstances. Your lenses have multi-coating and they still get flare sometimes, right?

    If you want a really nice UV filter, B+W makes a model with "multi-resistant coating". It's a very hard multicoating that doesn't easily scratch or get smear-like marks when it's cleaned.

    As for the close-up stuff--you're talking about extension tubes and a reversal ring, right? I read in a book on close-up photography once that "extension is extension" so any brand of tube that fits the camera and lens is fine. Same with a reversal ring. If you are considering close-up lenses--sometimes called filters but they're really lenses--I would recommend the two-element types. Nikon makes some really good ones. Canon does too. I think Pentax also makes some. They are definitely superior to the one element lenses.
  10. Alex, Rokkor lenses were made by Minolta. I have no idea who makes (or made) Rokunar brand gear, but its not Minolta. I doubt that anything badged Rokunar is as good as the Minolta equivalent.

    Anthony, the only way to find out if the piece of crap in hand (or good stuff in hand, for that matter) is good enough for you is to try it out. The opinions expressed here have little bearing on your property.


  11. Anthony, you asked if the Hoya Super-HMC is thinner than their HMC. The answer is yes and no.

    Hoya makes a few filters but their Pro 1 line is their best. In that line, both the HMC and S-HMC are thin multi-coated filters, both excellent for wide lenses. The only difference between these two is that the S-HMC has a front filter thread.

    Is the S-HMC worth the extra money? I dunno but I bought them anyway. You can check them out at.....
  12. I received Rokunar CPL filter as an when I purchased extra gift when I purchased B+W XS-Pro HTM KSM Circular Polarizer.
    I test with B+W. The build quality: B+W is fine and thinner. The quality is reasonably good in use. I do not see any significant difference in image quality in family use. I did not test it for landscape. B+W is more smooth and gradual change. Rokunar CPL did good job surprisingly.
  13. The biggest issues with filters:
    1. For filters that are not modifying the image with other than a flat surface (e.g. halo and many soft focus filters), it can introduce aberrations due to not having dead flat surfaces, or if its two surfaces are not perfectly parallel.
    2. Flare from light reflecting off of the two air-glass interfaces that have just been introduced into the optical train. Light reflects from all boundaries between materials with different refractive indices, and that includes glass and air boundaries. It is the reason lenses have optical coatings which reduce the amount of reflected light. Flare is most pronounced when a specular or point light source is in front of the lens, casting light onto its surface even if it's not within the field of view.
    The best filters, such as B+W or Heliopan, have the flattest and most parallel high precision surfaces. While multi-coated filters cannot completely eliminate flare, they can reduce it. Ultimately flare control also requires light and composition control, including the use of lens hoods and other means to keep stray light out of the optical train. If the optical train is a low quality lens with aberrations, low contrast, poor flare control and low resolving power (i.e. poor MTF characteristics), filter quality and optical coatings won't make much difference. However, if the lens optics are world class, made by a firm such as Carl Zeiss or Schneider-Kreuznach, a poor quality filter can immediately plunge it into utterly mediocre optical performance.
    A filter is another element and group added to the front of the lens. Its quality should be commensurate with the quality of the lens behind it. Keep that in mind when selecting and using one.

Share This Page