Undecided between UV Filters

ChasCS

I need some advice, while looking for a 77mm UV Filter, and can't decide between two. My choices are,
Hoya Pro 1 at $104.99
Or
B&W Schneider Clear MRC (007 M) for 'slightly' pricier $175.99?

How much difference can it make, by choosing one over the other, quality wise in the finished photo's?

Are there other brands you prefer, why? Thanks.

I already have a SIGMA DG UV Ultra-Low Reflection Multi-Coating on my Nikon AF-S 24-120mm and was initially considering just switching it from lens to lens.
But that effort seems fruitless and perhaps not the best, for my lens threads either.

mikep

why are you using UV filters ?

it will be difficult to find someone out there who bought hoya and regretted it

if you are using it as lens protection, you can get nikon nc ones for less cash

PB_PM

Yes, don't buy UV filters for protection. Some brands even make "protective filters" which are much less expensive, even with modern multi-coatings.

Golf007sd

I have Hoya HD (8 layer milk-coated) filters on all my lenses. I have been very happy with them. Have not notice any image degerdation while shooting. However, I do take them off long exposures while shooting HDR.

Msmoto

Oh, gosh, I use UV filters on almost all my lenses, and do it for several reasons, protection being one of them. The difference between the Hoya Pro 1 and the B & W probably cannot be seen, IMO. One note….the 24mm f/3.5 PC-E Nikkor must be used with no filter if a large shift or tilt is utilized. The result if a filter is left on is a vignette.

tc88

I wouldn't spend that much money on UV filters anymore. I have bought several B+W from the real Amazon and B&H and they are all different. That's in addition to the few that I returned that were obviously used on arrival. I don't know about Hoya. But B+W is not sealed. Someone could easily swap out what's inside and return used/fake ones back to Amazon/B&H.

I would say if you need protection, just buy a cheap one. When you have a difficult lighting condition, or need absolute clarity, just take off the filter and shoot.

Photobug

Personally used Nikon UV filters for 20 years then switched to Hoya. Like Golf I use the Hoya HD on my WA lens and uses Hoya Pro on two lens. Well worth the money. I think their multicoating is really good.

Ironheart

B+W rocks, but if the Nikon one is cheaper get it.

ChasCS

After reading some entries on another forum, I can see, many have various attitudes about these filters.

Nikon NC (clear) filters?

Hiya, can someone tell me about this. The 77mm is about $130 abouts they also have a slightly cheaper UV filter. What is the NC that is diff to the UV?? Maybe its about time I do have some protection filters well at least when using them in bad weather, beach, dessert, dusty and the like. Thanks.
It is doubtful that a $130 filter will do much more than a $70 filter (i.e. Hoya) except make your Nikkor lens feel more like a Nikon. It is your money and you have to decide.

The UV filter will cut the ultra-violet light a bit; the NC glass is just to protect.


I've spent some time staring at a Nikon NC filter alongside a Nikon L37c UV filter. (I know, I need to get a life.)

Anyway, both are coated filters, both will block UV light and there is supposedly a slight color difference between the two. However, A-Bing the two filters in various light conditions, I can't see the difference.

I've always used the Nikon L37c UV filters on my Nikon lenses and they are great coated filters with excellent glass and exceptional metal machining. I would note that at B&H, the 77mm L37c is $63 and the 77mm NC is $97.50:


I read somewhere that Nikon NC filters are not multicoated.

Nikon recommends the NC for protection in the blurb supplied with their lenses.

Umm, no; you can see the multicoating on the NC filters.


A useful tip when checking or comparing filters is to place them on a smooth white piece of paper. This doubles the apparent colour of the filter since the viewed light needs to pass through the glass twice. As for the L39C/NC question, I would go for the L39C anyway, especially if the price is lower. How many of us ask ourselves if we have a UV filter fitted when off on a day out to take photos at altitude. Incidentally, using a red filter cuts out virtually all other colours better than other colours of filters, so using a red as a lens test for chromatic aberration will show up whether chromatic aberration is a problem on a lens. Just take two identical pics with and without the red filter and compare the results. If the one without the filter is less sharp, then chromatic aberration exists.


The Nikon UV and NC filters are nice in that they're visibly neutral and have a very thin rim. I have not found the same to be true of Hoya UV filters which seem to produce a slight warming effect. I would not be surprised if the Nikon filters had better transmission also.

Would you put a Hoya element inside your Nikkor lens? Why not?


Since this post started, as best I can tell, Nikon has stopped making the L37c filter. B&H does still have the 77mm NC filter on its website:

Since modern glass absorbs most of the UV and digital cameras have better white balance control I suppose UV filters have become a niche item and Nikon thinks people should just use NC for protection.

Meant: modern lenses. Not necessarily specifically the glass.


I should make up my mind soon...

ChasCS

Then I read this and became even more confused.

From another forum:

Having given the manual for my 70-200mm f/2.8 a go-through, it stresses the importance of an NC filter. I haven't done any heavy shooting with it yet, so I have to ask - how important is an NC filter for a lens?

Having a filter is important for weather sealing and for protecting the front element of your lens. That being said, there is a feeling among some photographers (myself included) that feels that when you spend $1200 on a lens of the optical quality of the 70-200, it is a shame to stick a piece of $40 glass in front of it. I tend to use my 70-200 and 24-70 lenses without a filter 95% of the time, but with the hood on for everything except indoor flash photography. For times when I think the front element may be in peril, I got a 77mm B&W uv haze (link). While I agree that it's expensive, I feel that having the lenses that I do, the optical quality is justified.

77MM SLIM UV HAZE MRC (010M)



"Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC)
MRC by B+W is not only an extraordinarily effective multiple layer coating, it is also harder than glass, so that it protects filters from scratches (for instance when cleaning the filters), and it is also water and dirt repellent, thus facilitating filter maintenance.
A detailed description of MRC can be found here.
https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/filters/MRC.PDF

This filter uses our Slim-Line mount made of brass for wide angle lenses. They do not have a front accessory thread to avoid vignetting with lenses as wide as 17mm in 35mm format. Some report success with lenses as wide as 16mm. A slip on cap is supplied with Slim filters, sizes 49mm through 82mm.
The height is only 3mm. In the case of rotatable polarizing filters, the height is 5mm and made of aluminum."
Yeah, nice, very nice even, but $232 is in fact, right out there...
Cont:
Someone asked Ansel Adams about this. He put his answer in one of his books. I can't quote it but the exchange when like this "I want a filter to protect the lens" So Ansel repled "Protect it from what?"

"Protect it from what?" is a great quote and sums it all up. A filter will not protect the lens from water, or other environmental contaminants. It will not help much if the lens is dropped. What it most does for you is protect against cleaning by the owner. Lenses get dusty and we like to clean them but rubbing it with anything is not good for the optical coating. (The thickness of an optical coating is measured in fractions of a wavelength of light.) So you sacrifice the filter, let it take the brunt of the cleaning cloth or even unscrew it and use water on it.

The best filters are optically very good. Yes there are cheap ones. I think it is worth it to keep a good filter on an expensive lens but the kit lens no.
That 18-55 is only worth $100 when it was new why spend $50 for a filter. If the lens gets damaged buy another lens for $70 or so. Likely it will never be damaged but if it does you are only out $20.
To protect a lens from bumps a hood works well, better than a filter I think.

I was about to quote Ansel Adams but you beat me to it.. Nice one..
Anyway, the only time I slap a filter on is if I need polarization, a neutral density or a neutral density graduation.. I never do use UV or Haze or Skylight, etc.. And I have some very expensive glass, and I am somewhat careless as well, and I have never, knock on wood (taps on head) even had so much as a scratch on my front elements.. I've had all kinds of spray hit them though, but that's what a lens cloth is for.
Do I recommend one? Sure, why not? Just because I don't use them means nothing.

I'm rather wishy-washy on the protective filter dilemma; but I'm not sure an Ansel Adams quote is particularly relevant - unless you can show he was specifically referring to lugging around a 35mm camera w/ mounted lens. It's a rather different ballgame than the one he usually played...
I'm open to learning if that's the case, though.


Ansel shot mostly with a view camera, medium format. Try lugging one of those around, usually attached to the tripod, usually slung over your back, and as he did, hiking through parks.. Some would say, if anyone needed a protective filter, he did. Also, he used uncoated lenses so..
And, by the way, he did shoot with a 35mm as well. He also shot some color film.


Ok, obviously all of the brands mentioned will do the job, but perhaps some slightly better than those other ones.

We have so many, wonderful choices... Aren't we fortunate??

Golf007sd

@ChasCS: Have look at this topic as well. Hopefully it will aid in your decision process.

To Filter or Not to Filter

Ironheart

My understanding is that digital sensors are not very sensitive to UV light, (unlike film) so the NC clear filters are fine for digital.

sideways

Ironheart +1.

My reading suggests the same. No advantage to UV filtering with a digital camera unless you also use the lens on a film body.
I prefer to use filters for protection of the lens - my choice and it has paid off for me - but agree that having paid $$$ for the lens then it's a waste to use a cheap filter. There is one set of tests out on the 'net that suggests that 3 layer multicoated give good light transmission but 5 layer MC have slightly higher transmission. For what it's worth I put a "cheap" Hoya 3 layer (Pro Digital, quite well reviewed) on my new Nikon V1 last week, I have a Hoya 5 layer (HD Pro) on my 70-200 and a B&W on my 24-70. Both brands have a good reputation and will do the job of protecting the lenses from my carelessness and from children and friends with with fingers that don't know any better :-)

Oh, and like tc88 says - you can always take it off if lighting conditions get tricky ...

Msmoto

After looking over this subject on the web, it is my conclusion that indeed a UV filter can be useful with digital imaging. And, possibly the best way to determine this is to hold the UV filter up in a particular situation and see if there is any effect noted visually…. just like the commercial images posted in advertising.

As in most cases this is a matter of degree. The sensor is sensitive to UV but has filters on it which reduce this sensitivity already. The glass of the lens absorbs UV. So, how much difference will be seen with a UV filter vs. a coated non UV filter. Opinions in photography forums, "experts", and professional photographers varies from yeah to nay. Thus, I may just try this out myself and see what results I obtain if I can see a difference.

A UV filter does seem to warm the image slightly however. And, I will leave the ones on as I use them fro protection…..

More threads:
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/944/filter-protection/p1

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1367

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/972/which-brand-of-filters-nds-and-grads-do-people-use-and-why/p1

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ ChasCS - Like most things, it depends. The links are pretty exhaustive and worthy to read.

I'm a user of filters and hoods to protect the lenses, provide a bit of shade from sunlight and give a contrast boost.

They also protect the lenses somewhat from the ills that can befall them.

Moreover, they protect a traveling photographer from what may infringe upon keeping him from doing his job - having his equipment roughed up by Customs Agents, local authorities or security or by ducking during a fire fight or throwing the bag onto the steel floor of a helicopter.

I get the best quality filters. It makes no sense to get great lenses and poorer quality filers. Forty years ago Hoya brand wasn't top notch - things change, but I still go for B+H. I still get the thin filters so that if I do decide for wide angle filters in the same thread size, I can switch using the same filter without vignetting (the purpose of the thin filter).

Cleaning filters is easier than cleaning lenses, and one can argue (rightfully) that this is all pretty silly for a $100 lens, but I am focusing (no irony intended) saving the mission or job rather on just saving the lens.

There are certainly times to take the filter off - especially during reflections at night that 'echo' in the elements (unless it makes for a neat effect), but that should be easy enough.

My best,

Mike

ChasCS

@Golf007sd, @Msmoto yeah eh gee thanks.
Actually was hoping for suggestions, but wasn't expecting more lengthy threads to mull over.
Thankfully, these are much more up to date, than my examples from years gone by.

It only goes to show, that some things never seem to change, but happily continue to evolve.
So, do digital cameras need UV filtration on their lenses? That is the question.
Honestly, I had never even heard of NC filters, before beginning this thread. And they Can be more costly than UV ones.

Reading this might shed some bright and clearer light, on my questions... Full Spectrum if I'm lucky!!

Nikon NC Filter vs Hoya UV Filter. The difference is clear
What filter is attached to the lenses that you are using now?

Ever wonder what is the difference between a high-grade UV filter and a low-grade UV filter? Have you ever find out?

Here is a simple experiment you can do it at home.

Objective: To compare the quality of the available protective filter and rank them accordingly

Items:
1. One piece of white paper (a regular A4 paper will do)
2. Choice of your UV filters

Methodology:
1. Put all the filters on top of a piece of white paper.
2. Check the clarity visually to get a visual confirmation
3. Snap a photo of the filters arranged
4. transfer the photo into your Photo processing software (ACDSee pro will do)
5. Increase the Level and Contrast until you tell the difference.

Experiment report:
Refer to the picture #1 attached. The one left is Nikon NC Filter (worth RM230), on the right is Hoya UV Filter (worth RM120), and on the top is Marumi UV Filter (worth RM30 at most).

You will find that the Nikon NC Filter is the clearest among all three, Hoya UV Filter is slightly darker with a little yellowish, and the Marumi UV Filter is the darkest. Yes, I know it rather difficult to tell the difference especially based on a picture, but trust me, it is very clear if you see the experiment right before you.

In case you still can’t tell the difference, Picture #2 I attached is the same photo with high contrast to help you see better.

Conclusion:
The type of materials that called thin glass may not look as simple as you might think of. The thin glass itself will affect the penetration of light.

So do you still think the simple UV/NC filters are made equally? Think again, what lenses are you using now? Perhaps it is time to evaluate your filters attached with it.

Full report of Filter comparison is posted in: Calvin Studio

The thread from which I read the above. The Difference Is Clear

I'm glad to have had the imagination to inquire this topic much further...
Leaves much to the thoughts of just going bare balls, yeah Commando style, trusting in the lens hood, alone.

Heck, the stock Nikon lens hood for the AF-S 80-400mm (HB-65) can practically swallow my Af-S 24-120mm ~ sans hood.
Fits inside it, with room to spare on the outside, just a butt end sticking out.
That's a pair of my babies, sweet enough to swell up, with a proud papa feeling...
& yes, there was plenty of labour involved. ;-)

ChasCS

@Golf007sd @Msmoto
Hi, eh gee thank you!! I was looking forward to your advice, and not more lengthy threads to mull over...
But, at least they're very much fresher than my old references. I appreciate that. Awesome. They will be read.

I'm glad to have had the imagination, to pursue learning more, about this easily overlooked, small but important piece of our rather expensive and often elaborate, photographic arsenal.
A well stocked camera bag, may as we'll be a sack brim full, of platinum and gold ore bars. Rainbow Bridge collection.

Interesting bit of info here.

Nikon NC Filter vs Hoya UV Filter. The difference is clear
What filter is attached to the lenses that you are using now?

Ever wonder what is the difference between a high-grade UV filter and a low-grade UV filter? Have you ever find out?

Here is a simple experiment you can do it at home.

Objective: To compare the quality of the available protective filter and rank them accordingly

Items:
1. One piece of white paper (a regular A4 paper will do)
2. Choice of your UV filters

Methodology:
1. Put all the filters on top of a piece of white paper.
2. Check the clarity visually to get a visual confirmation
3. Snap a photo of the filters arranged
4. transfer the photo into your Photo processing software (ACDSee pro will do)
5. Increase the Level and Contrast until you tell the difference.

Experiment report:
Refer to the picture #1 attached. The one left is Nikon NC Filter (worth RM230), on the right is Hoya UV Filter (worth RM120), and on the top is Marumi UV Filter (worth RM30 at most).

You will find that the Nikon NC Filter is the clearest among all three, Hoya UV Filter is slightly darker with a little yellowish, and the Marumi UV Filter is the darkest. Yes, I know it rather difficult to tell the difference especially based on a picture, but trust me, it is very clear if you see the experiment right before you.

In case you still can’t tell the difference, Picture #2 I attached is the same photo with high contrast to help you see better.

Conclusion:
The type of materials that called thin glass may not look as simple as you might think of. The thin glass itself will affect the penetration of light.

So do you still think the simple UV/NC filters are made equally? Think again, what lenses are you using now? Perhaps it is time to evaluate your filters attached with it.

Full report of Filter comparison is posted in: Calvin Studio

I read the above info in a helpful thread here: The Difference Is Clear

I shall continue to investigate this interesting, if invisible to our naked eyes, matter.
I'm seriously considering going bare balls, yeah Commando. Trusting and relying fully on the stout lens hood.
The stock lens hood of the AF-S 80-400mm lens (HD-65) can practically swallow my AF-S 24-120mm lens, whole.
With room to spare around the edges. Only a small butt-end sticks out.

But how shall he be protected, if need be,,,?
These are my prized babies, and like a proud papa, there is always much to be over joyed of!!
& yes, there was plenty of lengthy labor involved!! Smile ;-)

Any other thoughts, ideas, please share yours... Mucho Gracias

ThomasHorton

I don't think it is necessary to copy the same methodology for every reply.

As for protective filters, I have been using Marumi clear filters and have liked them.

Vipmediastar_JZ

There is a thread over at DPR right now under the d800 forums.

they are saying that the digital sensor already provides UV
and a quote from lensrental

"Our point would be there’s no sense using a cheap filter to protect a lens – it reduces image quality. Plus the filter doesn’t protect the lens, it protects only the front element which costs only a tiny fraction of what the lens does. A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79. It makes little sense to buy an expensive filter to protect the front element which costs about the same as a good filter. It makes little sense to put a bad filter on the lens and reduce it’s excellent image quality."

ChasCS

I went with the favored B+W Schneider Clear MRC filter.
Seems to be the better choice of the two I had originally mentioned.

Thanks for the input, I really appreciate the information and thoughts...

donaldejose

I use Nikon NC filters on all of my lenses. 1. I would rather clean a filter than the front element of a lens. 2. I have also dropped lenses before in such a way that the filter took the impact and shattered but the lens elements were ok; I don't think that would have happened if I had not had a filter on the lens because the full impact force with have been born by the lens and front element. 3. I doubt a Nikon NC filter degrades lens performance if the sun is not striking the filter directly.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I almost bought the nikon clear one but bh mentioned that hoya makes them for nikon and get the uv instead. This was before i had this knowledge.

I much preferred cleaning the finger prints from the filter due to curious kids launching at my lens.
I havent dropped a lens but the hood lens has saved me from further crashing into a window or object.

I always shoot with the hood even indoors.
Currently the 24-70 sits naked but if i get another filter it will be clear and next filter on list is polarized.
I want to go to the willis tower and do some photography from the sky deck.

ThomasHorton

"A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79."

But how much does it cost to have the front element replaced?

adamz

just get the 77mm B+W UV MRC, there's no way a single 77mm UV filter will cost you more than $60-$70

TaoTeJared

just get the 77mm B+W UV MRC, there's no way a single 77mm UV filter will cost you more than $60-$70

I wish that was the case but I never buy lenses when filters are on sale

Imaginary: I found using UV filters add a bit more contrast in strong daylight or situations with a high reflective nature (windows, water, pavement, etc.) Only negative I have encountered is night street or low light with bright front light sources will create some ghosting. I just take the filters off in those situations.

Protection: I like the Hoya HD/2 and have really banged some lenses with these on them that I don't think any other would have survived.

I have a couple of "off" / re-branded filters that come out of Schindler that a local store sells (or they say they are). Either way I have tested them and they do not degrade the image at all and are coated so that it is easier to clean. That is a real plus for me. I can take a plain t-shirt and it works more than good enough without the normal smearing with the new coatings. If I need to clean a lens off during a shoot, I don't have time to say "wait" I need to pull the cleaner out, use a lens pen and take the next 5 minutes to get your baby's gerbal bubbles off my lens. I need filters that don't let that stuff stick.

"A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79."

But how much does it cost to have the front element replaced?

Last I looked into it the minimum was around $300 for a 105vr that has a small scratch on the edge. It almost always gets cropped off so I didn't bother. Scratched filter = cheaper to replace = no down time without lens.

Photobug

TTJ, I understand about just grabbing the edge of your t-shirt to clean a filter. Don't you carry one of those small microfiber cleaners that fold back onto it's self into a small holder?

I use to use my t-shirt until I scratched a filter because there was a small piece of sand on my shirt. Now I always have one of those microfiber cleaning things attached to the holder so they don't separate. That happened many years ago but have always carried a cleaning cloth or microfiber cloth.