As I said above , at older filters B+W made no different coatings. And in their brochure coating is not even hinted at, but explicetely at E and ES as their thread pitch indicators.
OK, that may be it. I hadn't seen that in the brochure that I found but I'll bet that was what they meant by that on older filters.
I can not for the life of me wonder why we all seem to need the 'finest' filters. To get them will cost a lot of money and I ask for our use is it actually necessary. I have only two multicoated filters in my stock and in normal use I fail to see any difference unless I deliberately include direct sun in the view. In fact for B&W I use Cokin acrylic 'P' range and have never found them to be any worse or indeed better than the top of the range pale yellow 62mm and a 77mm UV from B&W.
Yes there will be differences, but for the amateur user which I and almost certainly a good number of others on the forum use them will they really be able to tell the difference?
I guess it depends on the lenses you use with the filters. It seems a waste to put a questionable filter on a good Leica, Schneider or Zeiss lens. You paid big bucks for the lens quality, why compromise it? There is also the question of consistency, so you know you will be getting the same effect from different size filters of the same color. Oh, and have you ever had the joy of removing a stuck filter? Happens less with the better ones.
The better filters are often the only B60 mounts available and if one is using a Hasselblad then the better coatings with the B60 mount is a plus.
I don't own a Hassie so that is purely academic. I would rather spend my cash on film.
I'm not seeing any reference to uncoated filters, or different thread pitches. I don't doubt that these, and different uses of the letter E, existed in the past.
Sorry, but after looking 3 times I'm still not seeing either.There is explocite, repeateed referrbce to uncoated filters in their current product overview, to be found at their site, and this s the document that tells what is actually available.
Where; at the link I provided or somewhere else?. For neither love nor money I’m not seeing what you seem to see.At this overview 3 filters are described as uncoated and listet under "Basic", together with 4 E-coated ones and with the MRC-coated ones.
On second thought, let me borrow your quote: I give up…At this overview 3 filters are described as uncoated and listet under "Basic", together with 4 E-coated ones and with the MRC-coated ones.
No thanks. Not interested any more. If you can’t more specifically explain to what you refer…Sleep about it Brian, and tomorrow have a 2nd look.
#You should have been buying 15 years ago when all the cameras were cheaper even Hasselblad.
The Internet and digital photography as well (this is not an anti-digital statement, I shoot both myself). The latter makes it trivial to really zoom in on an image and analyze it to death rather than standing at a normal distance and appreciating it for what it is.I wonder if the red filter Ansel Adams used for Monolith: The Face of Half Dome was brass and multi-coated? Remember the good old days when you went into a camera store and had a choice between Hoya, Tiffen, and an off-brand like Prinz, and without consulting the Oracle of Delphi bought one, and then just went about making photos without all the angst and handwringing? I swear the internet has made us all neurotic. You know you are in trouble when you meet another photographer and sort of nonchalantly glance down at his camera and take note of the filter brand he uses.
I believe he used a Kodak wratten gelatin filter. Not sure if it was 3-inch or 4-inch, though. Perhaps we can get together with a Ouija board to get a clear answer.I wonder if the red filter Ansel Adams used for Monolith: The Face of Half Dome was brass and multi-coated? Remember the good old days when you went into a camera store and had a choice between Hoya, Tiffen, and an off-brand like Prinz, and without consulting the Oracle of Delphi you picked one, and then just went about making photos without all the angst and handwringing? I swear the internet has made us all neurotic. You know you are in trouble when you meet another photographer and sort of nonchalantly glance down at his camera and take note of the filter brand he uses, and then, if you use the same brand, you give him the secret handshake. Wait...I just checked and a Leica E39 UV filter runs $145. I have no idea what the "E" stands for. Probably "expensive".
No Ouija board required. I am sure you are correct. My question was rhetorical in nature.I believe he used a Kodak wratten gelatin filter. Not sure if it was 3-inch or 4-inch, though. Perhaps we can get together with a Ouija board to get a clear answer.
Why would you put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens?I can not for the life of me wonder why we all seem to need the 'finest' filters. To get them will cost a lot of money and I ask for our use is it actually necessary. I have only two multicoated filters in my stock and in normal use I fail to see any difference unless I deliberately include direct sun in the view. In fact for B&W I use Cokin acrylic 'P' range and have never found them to be any worse or indeed better than the top of the range pale yellow 62mm and a 77mm UV from B&W.
Yes there will be differences, but for the amateur user which I and almost certainly a good number of others on the forum use them will they really be able to tell the difference?
You get what you pay for.Why use a cheap film in a Leica?
What matters is the outcome. Why paying for something without effect on your photos?
One may buy an expensive lens for its focal length or its large aperture. In this regard the filter has no effect.
Why is not a commercial grade Durst enlarger advised here as the standard for a darkroom?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?