Are my filters good enough for my lenses?

[Markok765]

I dont want to degrade image quality with filters so: i have 3 lenses:
All super takumars(non-multicoated)
35 F3.5
105 F2.8
55 F1.8
My filters are:
Tiffen clear(used for movie cameras)
Hoya uv(0)
Hoya skylight 1B
Im expexting they hoyas to be good, as i know a pro who uses the uv(0) on him m6 with the 35 F2 summicrom-M, but how is the tiffen?
I bought all of these at 5$ each.
From the with\without photos on the packaging i expect them to be from the 70S.
I also have a tiffen orange, a tiffen 2 stop nd and a hoya HMC green.
Are these filters good enough for my glass, especially the tiffen, or will they degrade image quality noticably?
Thanks for the help!

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Marko,

The Tiffen Filters are OK glass, nothing remarkable, but certainly good to very good. Tiffen does offer many possibilities for the motion picture and TV industry. They also make some special filters useful for still photography offered by no other maker including their 812 warming filter and warm polarizer with this same filter. These 2 are useful for color photography. Some of their glass Grad filters including ND are very good and reasonably neutral for their Grad ND filters.

The Hoyas are frequently very good to excellent filters. Hoya is one of the largest makers of glass in the world. There are better and there are poorer filters. They may be the only maker of the Skylight 1B filters. The multicoating on their MC filters tends to be very good. Their ND filters are fairly neutral.

You should generally probably be OK with both makers filters. Be aware, both makers use aluminum threaded mounts so be careful about not cross threading filters and filters on your lenses.

I do not recommend stacking more than 2 or a maximum of 3 of these filters in particular. But I almost never recommend stacking more than 2 filters at a time unless needed.

I personally use a few of each maker, but I try to use the best I can including Heliopan, B&W, and Singh Ray for glass and Lee, Singh Ray, or Hitech for resin.

Three filters that appear to be noticeably absent from your B&W kit are a red, yellow, and perhaps most importantly a Polarizer.

Hope this helps and good luck shooting with your set-up.

Rich

 

[Markok765]

Thanks a lot! I actually have a polarizer. Its a very old one made by toshiba. i dont have a red or yellow, from hoya or tiffen because they are too expensive for me. i also have a tiffen warming 81B. what is cross threading?

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Marko,

Cross threading basically is when the threads get out of alignment as the filter threads or filter thread and lens thread slide past one another. They can tend to bind and damage the threads when this happens.

The aluminum filter housing tend to flex and deform more than the more expensive brass filter housings on the Heliopan and B&W filters. The flex of the aluminum makes it more likely for the problem of the cross threading effect. The brass filter threads can also cross thread but it is less common.

Basically what you want to do is to is at least slowly start to thread the filters and/or filter and lens. If you have problems removing the filters or filter and lens bind you want to release the filter to return to shape for a moment and try to turn the filter(s) again. Though the aluminum filter housing flexes or deforms, the glass of the filter does not.

Another trick to try to avoid cross threading and this also applies to battery covers on the camera as well are to reverse thread (turn in the opposite direction- counter clockwise) the filters or battery cover first. This will help to align the thread before you tighten the filters or battery cover (clockwise).

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

"Cross threading" is what happens when two filters don't screw in properly, because they aren't parallel, and the threads cross, and are usually ruined.

Your filters are fine. Spend your money on film for now. When it's time for an upgrade, you'll know.

 

[Markok765]

I actually bought 3 fuji sensia 2 apx 100 and a hp5

 

[Markok765]

Another trick to try to avoid cross threading and this also applies to battery covers on the camera as well are to reverse thread (turn in the opposite direction- counter clockwise) the filters or battery cover first. This will help to align the thread before you tighten the filters or battery cover (clockwise).

Rich

I actually do that with my filters and screwmount lenses

 

[David H. Bebbington]

It may not help you (due to cost) but I try to make sure that filters I use regularly (which means mainly a yellow-green filter for each lens when doing b+w) have a brass mount (Heliopan or B+W brand). These have much less of a tendency to stick. I buy them direct from Germany and they are not too dear (most recently I bought a B+W 30.5 mm yellow-green, it cost €18.99).

 

[Roger Hicks]

David's point about sticking and ease of use is much more important than the glass. Very few people have deliberately set up experiments to determine the effect of filter quality on image quality but of those who have, I am not aware of anyone who has found any detectable loss of on-the-film resolution with ANY half-decent filter, including 'optical resin' from Cokin and the like. This does not only include my tests; it also includes those by Ctein (a much better experimentalist than I) and limited testing by Ilford, plus what little I have seen in magazines and books over the years by others who have tried to carry out objective tests.

A big problem with photography is that people persuade themselves that they see all sorts of things that are not actually replicable or, indeed, visible to other people. I cheerfully use 'optical resin' filters with some of the finest MF and LF lenses in the world (Zeiss, Rodenstock, Schneider) and although I prefer B+W in 35mm, it's mainly for the reasons David gives, not optical quakity. It just ain't that hard to make a flat piece of glass.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[JBrunner]

David's point about sticking and ease of use is much more important than the glass. Very few people have deliberately set up experiments to determine the effect of filter quality on image quality but of those who have, I am not aware of anyone who has found any detectable loss of on-the-film resolution with ANY half-decent filter, including 'optical resin' from Cokin and the like. This does not only include my tests; it also includes those by Ctein (a much better experimentalist than I) and limited testing by Ilford, plus what little I have seen in magazines and books over the years by others who have tried to carry out objective tests.

A big problem with photography is that people persuade themselves that they see all sorts of things that are not actually replicable or, indeed, visible to other people. I cheerfully use 'optical resin' filters with some of the finest MF and LF lenses in the world (Zeiss, Rodenstock, Schneider) and although I prefer B+W in 35mm, it's mainly for the reasons David gives, not optical quakity. It just ain't that hard to make a flat piece of glass.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Rogers on it Marko, unless you are shooting an extremely wide focal length at a really deep stop, your filters are outside focus by a wide margin. Its all a matter of degrees, but I would say right now, it is the least of the things you could worry about.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

... David's point about sticking and ease of use ...

This is, I feel, particularly important with LF lenses, where it is essential that a filter unscrews from a lens with less effort than that required to unscrew the front lens group from the shutter!

One further point about filter brands - Hoya filters are by and large good, but their polarisers drive me nuts. The rotating (front) part has milling around the edge (which you don't need), the fixed rear part, which is thinner than with other filters and which you need to be able to grasp in order to get the filter off the lens, is smooth. Without a filter wrench/rubber band, I don't think I could ever remove an Hoya polariser!

Regards,

David

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is, I feel, particularly important with LF lenses, where it is essential that a filter unscrews from a lens with less effort than that required to unscrew the front lens group from the shutter!

(In manner of shop assistant)

"Ah, they all do that, sir."

(Yeah, right)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lee Shively]

Roger, I agree with you that glass filters usually have little or no practical effect on image quality. That is, unless it's a bum filter. I have posted in the past that my personal tests of a number of Cokin resin filters found them lacking. Even though the Cokin's were so bad the image distortion could be seen through the viewfinder when using telephoto lenses over 200mm on a 35mm SLR, they gave fairly acceptable results with wide to normal lenses in 8x10 prints. I think Cokin's might have less negative effect on larger formats than 35mm.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I agree with you that glass filters usually have little or no practical effect on image quality. That is, unless it's a bum filter. I have posted in the past that my personal tests of a number of Cokin resin filters found them lacking. Even though the Cokin's were so bad the image distortion could be seen through the viewfinder when using telephoto lenses over 200mm on a 35mm SLR, they gave fairly acceptable results with wide to normal lenses in 8x10 prints. I think Cokin's might have less negative effect on larger formats than 35mm.

Dear Lee,

Absolutely! I have to confess that I have never tried visibly ripply Cokins but I would be surprised if there were not detectable degradation in that case -- roughtly on a par with 3mm window glass, which I did try. But with good resin filters from several manufacturers again I saw no degradation. I was careful to say 'half-decent' filters in my post and I should have made it clearer that this does not necessarily include ALL Cokins. Has Cokin's QC improved? I imagine it must have.

Thanks for the further information and clarification -- and of course for the reminder that 'acceptable' can be a lot less than 'perfect'. My tests, incidentally, were all on 35mm, for convenience and economy and (most importantly) because as you say that's where it's most critical.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BrianShaw]

(In manner of shop assistant)

"Ah, they all do that, sir."

(Yeah, right)

Cheers,

R.

"Ah, you really should leave it on at all times, sir."

(yeah right)

 

[Lee Shively]

I should have noted that I don't think Cokin resin filters are representative of all resin filters. The only other resin filters I have any experience with are Singh-Rays. I've found them to be as good as the best glass filters.

 

[roteague]

I should have noted that I don't think Cokin resin filters are representative of all resin filters. The only other resin filters I have any experience with are Singh-Rays. I've found them to be as good as the best glass filters.

I agree. I switched out my Cokin system for a Lee system. The Lee is so much better, and not just the filters themselves, but the holders, attachment rings, etc.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've posted this before, but I did test all my filters at one point and discovered that there was no significant difference in resolution that might be caused by flatness issues, but there were significant differences in flare suppression. Even a cheap multicoated filter (Vivitar VMC) was better in this regard than single coated filters or resin filters. Resin filters are comparable to single coated filters in this regard.

Another attraction of new Heliopan filters is that they come standard in slim rings, so if you might be using them with wide lenses at some point, that's an advantage.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've posted this before, but I did test all my filters at one point and discovered that ...

I've seen you mention this before. Have you published the study? If not, would you?

I'd also be interested in the flare-resistance difference between a single coated filter and lens hood vs. multi-coated filter. The question of which filter is better and whether a lens hood is worth usin gor not seems to keep coming up. Maybe a valid published study would resolve some of the questions.

 

[Lee Shively]

In multi-coated filters, the best I've found are the B&W Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) filters. They are the first MC filters I've ever used that were easy to clean. I'm in the process of replacing all my older UV protection filters with MRC filters. I still think it's a good idea to remove even multi-coated filters if shooting into a bright light source.

 

[naturephoto1]

In multi-coated filters, the best I've found are the B&W Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) filters. They are the first MC filters I've ever used that were easy to clean. I'm in the process of replacing all my older UV protection filters with MRC filters. I still think it's a good idea to remove even multi-coated filters if shooting into a bright light source.

Lee,

Have you seen the new Heliopan MC filters yet? I haven't tried to clean them, but boy are they nice (and expensive)!!!!!! And I do have some of the B&W Pro MC filters.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've seen you mention this before. Have you published the study? If not, would you?

I'd also be interested in the flare-resistance difference between a single coated filter and lens hood vs. multi-coated filter. The question of which filter is better and whether a lens hood is worth usin gor not seems to keep coming up. Maybe a valid published study would resolve some of the questions.

It was a few years ago, and I've since gotten rid of many of my less desirable filters, so I haven't published it, but it wouldn't be too hard to replicate. Maybe if I've still got enough of a range of filter types (or if I could borrow a few crappy filters), I could run another test when I'm back in New York.

The key thing is to set up a scene that is likely to produce flare and ghosting. I used a darkened room with a bright window in the scene, camera at an angle to the window to produce a clear ghost image with a cheap uncoated filter. It was fairly easy to see the difference between different filter types. This is the sort of flare that would not be helped much by a lens shade, because the source of the flare is in the frame. The shade might improve overall contrast by reducing veiling flare, but it might make the ghost image even clearer.

Lens hoods are always worth using. That's another one you can test easily.