Filters. What maker should I buy.

[Freelander]

Hi ,
Please excuse a very basic question.

Do I buy Leica filters for my proposed lenses or are Hoya and B&W of equal quality ?

Thanks up front.... David

[ClaremontPhoto]

B+W (not B&W) are five star and for good quality lenses.

Hoya are three star and for day-to-day lenses.

Leica are for people with a fetish.

Depends on what lenses you have (or plan to have) and what filters you want.

[delft]

Does Leica still makes filters?

B.T.W, there also is heliopan, with wich I'm happy. Nowadays, availability also plays a role.

Greetings,
Dirk

[sevo]

Leica probably never "made" filters - Leitz initially made their own, but by the fifties, they were already repackaging CENEI filters. Don't know what they were repackaging more recently - probably B+W or Heliopan (Schott glass in either case).

Sevo

[nickdando]

There are also Heliopan, which uses Zeiss glass, and Rodenstock. The glass in these is of an extremely high quality.

But the Leica filters that I have (nearly all 39mm chrome finish, bar the universal polariser for the M3/M6 and R-D1) far surpass them in the build quality. They just have a superb feeling of strength and longevity that the others don't quite have. The only new filters that I've bought have been some of the polarisers (I have a mixed bag of Heliopan and Rodenstock for my Contax SLRs); everything else has been obtained secondhand.

Nick

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by Freelander

Hi ,
Please excuse a very basic question.

Do I buy Leica filters for my proposed lenses or are Hoya and B&W of equal quality ?

Thanks up front.... David

Hi David and welcome to the forum! B+W and Heliopan surpass Leica filters in optical quality so you are better off with them. AFAIK Leica are still using B+W to make their filters. Whatever the merits of the respective rings, the Leica filters are single coated, so if you want to pay for the word L E I C A on the ring by all means do so. B+W are more easily available than Heliopan, and their top line is called MRC (multi-resistant coating) and they are very good indeed. Look for MRC F-Pro as the best quality B+W. They are expensive, but you get what you pay for, the very best optics and rings of brass construction.

You can reduce the cost a bit by buying B+W filters with alloy rings from HK. B+W doesn't make every filter with an alloy ring (39mm for example - for obvious reasons) but quite a number of sizes now come in alloy. B+W have been very coy about this but they can be bought from a HK eBay dealer and have the word "alloy" in the listing description in capital letters. I've bought 52mm and 77mm filters from this dealer and they are definitely B+W MRC glass. Worth looking into...

[Freelander]

Peter whats a HK dealer ?

[nickdando]

Hong Kong.

Nick

[venchka]

B+W
heliopan

No particular order-either brand works for me.

as for Leica filters being built better, I have a couple old Leica filters. The newer B+W and heliopan filters aren't inferior to Leica in any way. Or the Leica filters are in no way superior to B+W or heliopan.

[mojobebop]

You can reduce the cost a bit by buying B+W filters with alloy rings from HK. B+W doesn't make every filter with an alloy ring (39mm for example - for obvious reasons) but quite a number of sizes now come in alloy.
-----------------------------------------
isn't there some sort of filter which allows the
use of various sizes. (so one only has to purchase one filter)?

has anyone used this device?

[Al Kaplan]

Step-up and step-down rings will allow various lenses to use the same filter size. With a rangefinder camera using too large a filter might block part of the viewfinder, and the factory hood won't fit. Too small a filter is likely to cause vignetting.

[venchka]

Al's right. I standardized on 46mm. I have 34-46, 39-46 & 43-46 step up rings. With these I can use the same filters on a variety of lenses. The best news: I got a new view camera lens last week that uses 46mm filters.

[mark-b]

B+W is the first choice. Hoya Super HMC comes in 2nd.

[runny]

For B+W in Hong Kong - go to Tin Cheung in Kowloon, or Photo Scientific on Stanley Street for Central Hong Kong Island. There is a web shop based in HK with good pricing and amazing range, but I cannot remember the name.

[dap]

Theoretically B+W and Heliopan are the best (superior glass, brass mounting ring...blah blah blah). In the real world I doubt that you will notice any difference between the two previously mentioned filters and a good multicoated Hoya. I own all three types - they are all high quality. If I was buying just one filter I would probably pop for a B+W or heliopan - If I was buying a number of filters I would try to spare my walllet some trauma and buy Hoya.

[mabelsound]

I've thought about this a fair amount, and I am beginning to think it doesn't matter what brand filters you use, especially if it's just for lens protection. If I hold up the most cheap-ass imaginable UV filter (like the ones you get free with Pentax lenses from ProDigital2000) next to one of my nice B&W UV filters and look through both, there is no discernable difference. And they will be lying so close to your lens that any impurities in the glass will be almost completely invisible.

I'm aware of the "you spent all that money on a nice lens, why ruin it by putting cheap glass in front of it" argument, but I don't think it makes much sense. If actual scratches on the front element of your lens don't show up in photos, how is a brand-new inexpensive UV filter supposed to make a difference?

[sjw617]

Cheap filters have little or no coatings and flare more than a good filter. Why spend the money on a great lens and add something that may screw up shots?

Steve

[ferider]

Welcome David.

B+W, Heliopan, Schneider, Rodenstock are probably the best.

The highest quality Hoya filters (Super HMC Pro) are very good. Easier to get, for example if you need thin filters. Rumour is Leica filters are made by Hoya, too.

Prices for filters vary a lot. I often use 2filter.com, or Hong Kong ebay sellers (for example hvStar).

I agree that the actual filter doesn't matter so much, except for ghosts that might be introduced by poor coating. I do judge a filter in parts by how easy it is to clean (no streaks, etc).

Best,

Roland.

[mojobebop]

my experience has been the cheap ones;
(the ones salesmen try to sell you because commission is higher),
streak when you clean.
i had that problem with hoya. could not get streaks off.
time and time again no apparent reason.

i use heliopan. (one of those rattles around in it's frame
for no apparent reason).
b&w as well my preference.
they sell the multi-coated which is supposed to prevent flare.

[mabelsound]

Again, can you see the streaks on your photos? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but put a cheap filter on your camera, take a photo, replace it with a B&W filter, take the same photo. If you can tell the difference, AT ALL, then yes, it matters.

I usually shoot with hoods and so don't have a lot of flare issues. And don't get me wrong--I have a few B&W UV filters and they are definitely very well made and clear as air. But I personally cannot tell the difference between the pictures I take through cheap UV and the ones I take through the B&W's. I mean, they are identical.

[mabelsound]

And I want to add that I am not one of those people who always thinks the final image is the ultimate criterion. I think it's worth owning, say, an M7 instead of a Canonet, even though your photos with it are not necessarily going to be any better--with a camera or even a lens, it's a matter of feel and workflow. If you have the money, and an expensive item will make you enjoy photography that much more, I'm all for ponying up for the good stuff.

But UV filters. I dunno. I am finding it harder and harder to justify the cost.

[mojobebop]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

Again, can you see the streaks on your photos? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but put a cheap filter on your camera, take a photo, replace it with a B&W filter, take the same photo. If you can tell the difference, AT ALL, then yes, it matters.

I usually shoot with hoods and so don't have a lot of flare issues. And don't get me wrong--I have a few B&W UV filters and they are definitely very well made and clear as air. But I personally cannot tell the difference between the pictures I take through cheap UV and the ones I take through the B&W's. I mean, they are identical.

---------
i think common sense would dictate that if one filter has huge, obvious streaks across it's surface it would affect the image.
i had an incident last week where i'd left a nikon lens out for some time and was shooting
d200. wear reading glasses, but noticed every shot seemed to have an odd sunlit diffusion.
wiped off the lens and it disappeared.

there was a light coating of dust on the filter of this lens which would be similar i think
to streaking.

[ferider]

While I don't always agree with Puts, I like his write-up on filters:

Originally Posted by E. Puts

Should I use filters?
A hotly debated topic, this one. Any filter in front of the lens will add one additional airspace and two additional surfaces. So by definition image quality should be degraded. How visible will this be? One obvious case: when strong light sources are shining directly or obliquely into the lens + filter, severe flare and secondary (ghost) images will be detected. Even when we are taking pictures in situations where contrast between dark and light areas is very strong, some degradation can be expected.
These effects will also be stronger when we are using the wider apertures. Stopped down the flare will be less noticeable, but the ghost images will still be visible. If this is objectionable to you depends on subject matter and your own criteria.
A filter will be useful for protecting the lens surface. Leica front lenses are hardcoated, but not invulnerable to dust and chemical reactions. So I prefer to use a filter when I am sure image quality is not degraded by its use. In sensitive cases I just remove the filter. In low-contrast situations. landscapes, reportage etc, everywhere when the use of a filter is acceptable from an image quality view and helps to keep the front lens clean and protected I use a filter. When using B&W some filters must be used to get the correct tonal reproduction. (TechPan for instance).
You should realize that the degrading effect of a filter is much lower, in most situations,than using a shutter speed of 1/15 sec. Many Leica users feel no inhibition to use slow shutter speeds, but are afraid to use a filter, bcause ofiits impact on image degradation.
Stopping down to f/11, or using a speed of 1/30 or an inaccuracy of rangefinding aproduce more disaster than a filter (except the cases first mentioned of course). Let us keep the things in perspective and first attack the big causes of image degradation before going to the smaller evils.

And this is how filter-induced ghost can look like:



Canon 50/1.2 with hood.

Cheers,

Roland.