Thoughts on "Multicoated" lens filters

"Tony Polson" wrote in message ...
Paul Furman wrote:

I purchased an old 300mm f/2.8 with a flawless front element (looks
beautiful). The seller had gone out & bought a new NC filter for selling
it because his old one was trashed and that's how he worked, he assumed
the buyer would want one. So I use it because it seems so exposed & hard
to protect without the monsterous lens shade attached... though I wonder
if it effects image quality.

No-one has ever produced comparison shots that showed any
deterioration in image quality when using a good quality filter. So
don't worry.

I have done my own careful comparisons with modern lenses and found no
discernible difference.

What I have seen is comparisons where older lenses (with poor coatings
by modern standards) were used with uncoated filters. The flare was
certainly significant.

Moral of the story: If you want to protect your investment in quality
modern lenses without having any discernible effect on your images,
always fit a top quality multicoated UV filter.

From a practical point of view, avoid Hoya HMC multicoated filters
because they are extremely difficult to keep clean. I strongly
recommend B+W, Heliopan and Nikon brand filters. They can all be
found discounted on eBay.

I have done some testing using a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor at f3.5 (sharp!)
using a Nikkor front filter, a Nikkor rear filter, both, and none (removing
the rear filter requires refocusing). There were no discernable differences
on slow film examined directly at 15X (focus bracketing was done, and
some frames were slightly out of correct focus, but there were equally
sharp frames for all filter combinations. (Filter characteristics affect
sharpness of long FL lenses more than short.) I also found little to no
advantage in using multicoated filters with good lenses, and favor Hoya
single-coated UV filters for economical lens protection - and do not see
the need for buying more expensive filters (I also dislike the Hoya HMC
filters for the same reason as you - and I try to avoid Tiffen filters which
are uncoated and "self fog" within a few months, so they require
occasional cleaning before use [the rims are also thick and poor]). I
have found no wide angle that cannot successfully be used with the
Hoya filter (polarizers could be the exception, but these should not be
used with super-wides anyway), but such may exist - in which case
a special WA filter, or the use of a step-up ring with a larger filter,
may be desireable...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

Tony Polson wrote:

Moral of the story: If you want to protect your investment in quality
modern lenses without having any discernible effect on your images,
always fit a top quality multicoated UV filter.

A multicoated _neutral color_ is a much better choice.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Paul Furman wrote:

I purchased an old 300mm f/2.8 with a flawless front element (looks
beautiful). The seller had gone out & bought a new NC filter for selling
it because his old one was trashed and that's how he worked, he assumed
the buyer would want one. So I use it because it seems so exposed & hard
to protect without the monsterous lens shade attached... though I wonder
if it effects image quality. That's the only lens I use one on. I got
another for my 45/2.8 because it was part of the factory package but
that has a lens shade I leave on which protects the front just fine so I
took the NC filter off. If anyone wants a Nikon 52mm NC filter, I got
one for ya.

I have a 300 f/2.8 with a 114mm NC filter. Huge but it's only come off
a couple times to get at some dust 'between front element and filter.

Most of my lenses do have a protection filter as the front elements are
large. Exceptions a

Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro. The front element is deep (most of the time)
and the lens shade is very deep.
50 f/1.7. Deep enough to not need a filter.

100 and 150mm Carl Zeiss (Hasselblad) lenses do not have filters. The
front element is recessed reasonably. The 80mm has one.

In dusty, foggy, misty and usually windy conditions, these lenses get a
filter.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Dave wrote:

should i buy "Multicoated" lens covers (i believe a.k.a. Neutral
Density Glass Filters)? has anyone used them?

And, if the miraculous (so people keep saying) Pentax SMC lenses have
the best coatings, wouldn't Pentax filters (if indeed there are any such
things) be the best?


There was a time when Pentax SMC coatings led the world. But that was
a long time ago. It predated the change from M42 mount to Pentax K
bayonet.

Pentax licensed the technology to other companies, notably Nikon and
Carl Zeiss. Further development of coatings has led to improvements
beyond the original SMC, and Pentax no longer holds a clear lead (if
any at all) over other brands.

As for Pentax brand filters, I don't know if Pentax ever made them.
However, in recent years, all Pentax filters have been supplied by
Hoya, and they are not in any way exceptional. I somehow doubt that
they ever were.

Nikon claims to make its own brand filters. However, Nikon also
claims it makes/made all Nikkors, when it is well known that many
Nikon lenses over the years have been made by contractors including
Tamron, Tokina, Cosina and Kino Precision. Several current consumer
grade Nikkors are made by Tamron and Tokina. So let's not get too
hung up on Nikon's claims about making Nikon filters!

Having said all that, Nikon's filters appear to be extremely well
made. I strongly suspect that they are made by Hoya, but to Nikon's
very high specifications.

Tony Polson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

No-one has ever produced comparison shots that showed any
deterioration in image quality when using a good quality filter.
Can you prove your statement?


Can you disprove it? Please go ahead and do so, because I would be
very interested to learn of any objective research, based on carefully
controlled experiments, that disproves it. Over to you!

Or are you just a troll, as your other posts would seem to suggest?

Warning: Questioning the Tony makes one a troll.

Oh, OK, no real danger in that.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Dave wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:32 pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
No-one has ever produced comparison shots that showed any
deterioration in image quality when using a good quality filter.
Can you prove your statement?
Can you disprove it? Please go ahead and do so, because I would be
very interested to learn of any objective research, based on carefully
controlled experiments, that disproves it. Over to you!

Or are you just a troll, as your other posts would seem to suggest?

THANKYOU to everyone who responded - i've been carefully following
your responses.

while travelling i did notice that it was my wider lens that were
taking more of a beating - and it makes sense as more lens surface is
exposed. i'll pickup a good MC lens of some sort (possibly UV filter
- although i've read the pros never use these). also, i agree HOYA
lenses are not the greatest so i'll stray from there this time.

B+W, Heliopan are the better, if more expensive filters. (As often as
not this is due to the construction rather than the filter glass
itself). I recently bought a Nikon branded one ... nice thin ring.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

jeremy wrote:

I use UV filters as protection for my front lens elements. Even though
today's film emulsions are less-sensitive to UV, and the multicoating on
lenses tends to absorb UV anyway, I have always felt that the use of a UV
filter--as opposed to a plain Protection Filter--couldn't hurt.

Is there any real advantage in using a clear glass (i.e., non-UV) filter?

If there is no need to filter something, then why filter for it?

I have a mix of UV and NC filters for those lenses where I do use a
protective filter (I don't put "protective" filters on those lenses
that have well recessed front elements).

One poster in this thread suggests that UV filters lend a slight yellow
cast.

You say above that Multicoating absorbs UV? Any references for that?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"David Ruether" wrote:

I have done some testing using a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor at f3.5 (sharp!)
using a Nikkor front filter, a Nikkor rear filter, both, and none (removing
the rear filter requires refocusing). There were no discernable differences
on slow film examined directly at 15X (focus bracketing was done, and
some frames were slightly out of correct focus, but there were equally
sharp frames for all filter combinations. (Filter characteristics affect
sharpness of long FL lenses more than short.) I also found little to no
advantage in using multicoated filters with good lenses, and favor Hoya
single-coated UV filters for economical lens protection - and do not see
the need for buying more expensive filters (I also dislike the Hoya HMC
filters for the same reason as you - and I try to avoid Tiffen filters which
are uncoated and "self fog" within a few months, so they require
occasional cleaning before use [the rims are also thick and poor]). I
have found no wide angle that cannot successfully be used with the
Hoya filter (polarizers could be the exception, but these should not be
used with super-wides anyway), but such may exist - in which case
a special WA filter, or the use of a step-up ring with a larger filter,
may be desireable...



Thanks, David. Interesting stuff.

In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

Nikon claims to make its own brand filters. However, Nikon also
claims it makes/made all Nikkors, when it is well known that many
Nikon lenses over the years have been made by contractors including
Tamron, Tokina, Cosina and Kino Precision. Several current consumer
grade Nikkors are made by Tamron and Tokina. So let's not get too
hung up on Nikon's claims about making Nikon filters!

since it is so well known, tell us which of the 'several current
consumer grade nikkors' are made by other companies.

Tony Polson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:

No-one has ever produced comparison shots that showed any
deterioration in image quality when using a good quality filter.

Can you prove your statement?

Can you disprove it?

You owe me $10.000. Can you disprove it?
Then pay up or be called a troll.

-Wolfgang