Tiffen?

[chris_chris1]

I took a trip into Manhattan today, and bought the 70-200 f4L from

B&H. When I told the attendant that I wanted a Tiffen UV to go with

it, he literally laughed in my face and said: "You wouldn't put

tractor fuel in a Ferrari would you?" He said the 70-200 4L is an

excellent lens, and that he couldn't believe I would ask for a Tiffen

UV to go with it (so he gave me the Hoya instead, at 9 bucks more).

So, are his viewpoints on Tiffen consistent with most pros? I always

thought that Tiffen was pretty reputable, but this guy was adamant. I

don't deny that he may have been trying to squeeze a few extra bucks

out of me, but since it was B&H, and only cost $9 more, I went for it.

Should I steer clear of Tiffen in the future?

 

BTW...For those of you who replied to my post about the 70-200 4L on

an Elan 7NE, I used the lens today, and I absolutely love it! Thanks

for the input!

[christopher.]

I put 93 octane in my silverado. If I had a porche, I would put the same fuel in it. I have some tiffen filters and I can tell no difference. If I could see it maybe I would bite. I think he is just trying to make a few bucks on ya.

[stephen hazelton]

Considering that tractors quit using Ferrari fuel fifty years ago, no, I wouldn't put tractor fuel in a Ferrari. Or vice versa. And I wouldn't be too sure that a Ferrari was any higher tech, engine-wise, than a tractor. Also, in the US, you'd have legal problems because the tractor fuel doesn't have the highway taxes paid on it. I see that the John Deere 9020 series tractor is available with up to a 500 HP engine, for what that's worth. Maybe those guys should get out of New York a little more often.

 

But all that's beside the point. And whether his views are consistent with most pros is a moot point, too. The big question is, can you actually see any difference in the photos between the Tiffen and the Hoya? I've seen a few posts extolling the virtues of multi-coated filters vs un-coated, but haven't really seen anything where people could actually detect the difference in BRAND of the filters in use.

[jonas_gustavsson]

A simple question with complicated answer. Or maybe the question really is what the question really is? Check out this discussion of <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/"> UV-filters</a>.

[edward_h]

I could see a difference using my 50/1.8 with a cheap Hoya filter, and using it without (ghosting problems).

 

On the glass I actually care about (not the 50) I have only B+W F-pros.

[mormegil]

I just keep the hood on, no UV filter.

 

 

Of course on my new 17-85, which I haven't gotten a hood yet, my sister's dog LICKED the front element! Wish I had a UV filter then...

[astcell]

I bought the Canon filter at $39, very inexpensive, but am I right to assume that Canon would not lend its name to something that would not be perfect in front of their own lenses?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have never used a Canon filter, but <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters.html#Brand">word is that they don't have the greatest reputation</a> (and I've heard that other than on the page shown above).</p>

[rayn]

Yeah, camera sales guys like to push Hoya for some reason. B&H especially does that. I've

used lots of filters over the last 15 years and I'd say the Tiffen suck about as bad as the

Hoya. They arn't bad filters, they just suck an even amount.

 

If you really want the good stuff, it's German. B+W MRC is about as good as it gets.

Heliopan is good too. If you're going to leave a filter on the lens all the time, it's got to be

a B+W or Heliopan. Get the MRC variety.

[bob_bell]

Im a part time pro (meaning I get paid for some projects) and after a few years have found that there is less negative impact to the image using better filters. The big advantage of B+W and Heliopan is that they are mounted in brass which doesnt get stuck to aluminum as much. I only own 1 tiffen filter and its a 77mm UV that came with something else and I bent the outside rim out of round trying to remove it. Its never gone back on my L zooms because of that plus it was a major pain to take off.

 

Also, I have seen a line of Tiffen that is very low qualty, like looking through plastic so I'm not sure if you were going to buy those or not, so it might of been worth the 9 bux for a higher end filter. I hope you got a multicoated version.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/misc.html#protective">My camera salesperson tried to sell my a protective filter. Should I get one?</a> </P>

<P> As I see it - No. I am doing fine (for 15 years) without any. I think that the use of a protective filter is justified only in hostile environments (e.g. in the middle of a sand storm) where there is a real risk that something will actually touch the lens. And as I'm never in such places I simply use the lens caps when the lens is in the bag and the lens hood <b>at all other times</b> (i.e. when it's on the camera). This way... <br></P>

<P>1. I have the best flare protection. Some mediocre filters actually increase the chance of getting flare. Good ones are pricey.<br>

2. I have better physical protection. <br>

3. I save money of "protective" filters. A dedicated lens hood is cheaper than a good filter. <br>

4. I have best optical results. </P>

 

<P>The only filter I own is a CPL. As I have good lenses (Canon primes), I chose an equally good filter: B+W MRC. If I'd buy a UV filter at some point in the future it will also be B+W MRC. From what I hear, and from my experience with my CPL, B+W are the best.</P>

 

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[mcgarity]

I have come to the conclusion that I will never buy another Hoya multicoated UV haze filter. For me at least they have proven to be next to impossible to clean in the field. I have not had similiar troubles with B+W.

 

I heard rumors that Hoyas multicoated filters were difficult to clean some time ago. I can now confirm its no rumour, its the truth. If you get something on a Hoya multicoated filter it seems like all you can do is smear it around. The only thing I have found that really cleans one is hot water and dish soap which is normally not available in the field.

[scott_milso]

The Tiffen is not coated, the Hoya is. I always use Hoya's good filters for a good price. Canon used coated optics when making your lens for a reason, it seems reasonable to then NOT put uncoated window glass in front of your $600 lens. Shine a bright light on an uncoated filter and then compare it to a coated filter, you'll plainly see the difference.

[scott_milso]

Larry, The Hoya MC filters ARE a bitch to clean, but so are the B+W's. What I do is carry a silk tie and some alcohol, a very little dab of alcohol applied to the silk then lightly rub the filter in a circular motion.

[sean_mclennan]

hang on a sec...did anyone read Bob's review of filter elements? (link posted in the third answer in this post)

 

I had never thought of that, but of course digital sensors would respond differently to non-visible light than a film camera. If CMOS/CCD are not sensitive to UV...why bother?

 

Secondly, if you read Bob's review, the B+W filters did NOT provide the best UV filtering, so if that is your concern, B=W would be a bad choice. The Tiffen provided the best results...and it's the cheapest solution. So for UV filtering there is a clear winner.

 

The UV is clearly not as much an issue on the CMOS sensor as it was on film. To me, on a DSLR, you either want the protection in front of your lens, or you don't.

 

As for Yakim's statement he has better *physical* protection from a lens hood than a filter, well, sorry, that simply is a matter of difference on the type of physical contact you expect. Lens hoods do nothing for flying objects, nor if you drop it/fall onto a non-flat surface, like a corner of a desk/table.

 

In any case, if you really goof up, you only *hope* these steps you take might be able to save you...they may work they may not right.

 

To me a lens hood is mandatory. And a simply sky light/UV1 filter is a close second. For it's price, it's a no brainer.

 

Question: If you use rubbing alcohol to clean your Multi-Coated lenses...are you not rubbing away your multi coating?

 

sean

[lee_shively]

I have over 30 years collection of filters of various brands. There is no difference in optical quality between UV filters. That's comparing the expensive B&W multicoated superduper to the lowly Tiffen UV Protector. No difference. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.

[scott_milso]

I use ethanol or methanol and so far, after a couple years it has not affected the coatings on my filters. Isopropyl might damage the coatings though I don't know. Just read the bottles at the drug store and buy either the meth or the eth.

[mcgarity]

Anhydrous alchohol is supposedly the type to use for cleaning filters. The problem is its difficult to obtain. I have also been told you have to be exceedingly careful in how you handle it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, just like there are no differences in the optical quality between lenses either.

[rayn]

"I have over 30 years collection of filters of various brands. There is no difference in

optical quality between UV filters. That's comparing the expensive B&W multicoated

superduper to the lowly Tiffen UV Protector. No difference. None. Nada. Zero. Zip."

 

Time to see the eye doctor.

 

All you need to do is hold up a B+W MRC filter and a Tiffen filter next to each other and

you will *immediately* see the difference. I don't mean a subtle difference, I mean a

pronounced difference. The B+W will seem like the glass isn't even there. Like it's just an

empty filter ring with no glass at all. The Tiffen will look like someone cut the glass out of

your bedroom window and stuck it in a filter ring. Of course, this difference mostly has to

do with the MRC in the B+W. The Tiffen is showing reflections that indicate there is glass

there. But I think it also has alot to do with the Schott glass in the B+W.

 

Try it. It is not a subtle difference at all.

 

On a side note, the B+W just oozes quality when you hold one. Kind of like holding a well

built metal lens.

[mormegil]

Beware about anyhydrous alcohol. Once the bottle is opened, it will soak up water from the atmosphere, soon leaving you with non-anyhydrous alcohol.