B+W "Basic" filters vs. F-Pro

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2022

Here we go again... citing something old by Ansel as somehow an acceptable quality standard today. You gotta be kidding. Ever seen some of those old negs up close, or even the prints themselves, and how much hell people went through dodging, burning, and then spotting those. NO !!!! - if it was good enough for Ansel, it's not necessarily going to be good enough for me. Gel filters accumulate grit and fingerprints like crazy under outdoor usage, creases too. They aren't cheap either. There are way better options today. My own specialized Wratten gels have lasted decades because they are pampered and never leave the lab.

But if you bought a paper clip with a Leica logo on the package it would probably cost a hundred bucks, even though it cost them a cent apiece. No different with filters. Most of them are just from the usual suspects anyway. I've recently run into Hoya filters drastically marked up for private labeling reasons, though exactly the same thing except for the labeling. I personally just want to get the job done. I don't need a Collector Edition filter with glued genuine alligator hide around the rim.

faberryman · Mar 9, 2022

DREW WILEY said:
Here we go again... citing something old by Ansel as somehow an acceptable quality standard today. You gotta be kidding.

Here we go again...the same old Ansel bashing coupled with self-aggrandizing claims of technical prowess. You gotta be kidding.

DREW WILEY said:
I've recently run into Hoya filters drastically marked up for private labeling reasons, though exactly the same thing except for the labeling.

Please share with us the details of these rebranded Hoya filters so that we too can number ourselves among the cognoscenti.

BrianShaw · Mar 9, 2022

Golly… the reference to AA using gel filter on that image was just a statement of fact. Nothing more; nothing less. If incorrect, please correct.

Sirius Glass · Mar 9, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
Why would you put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens?

Is this a trick question?

Sirius Glass · Mar 9, 2022

DREW WILEY said:
Here we go again... citing something old by Ansel as somehow an acceptable quality standard today. You gotta be kidding. Ever seen some of those old negs up close, or even the prints themselves, and how much hell people went through dodging, burning, and then spotting those. NO !!!! - if it was good enough for Ansel, it's not necessarily going to be good enough for me. Gel filters accumulate grit and fingerprints like crazy under outdoor usage, creases too. They aren't cheap either. There are way better options today. My own specialized Wratten gels have lasted decades because they are pampered and never leave the lab.

But if you bought a paper clip with a Leica logo on the package it would probably cost a hundred bucks, even though it cost them a cent apiece. No different with filters. Most of them are just from the usual suspects anyway. I've recently run into Hoya filters drastically marked up for private labeling reasons, though exactly the same thing except for the labeling. I personally just want to get the job done. I don't need a Collector Edition filter with glued genuine alligator hide around the rim.

Gel filters are fragile compared to glass filters. I would not use one unless I had to and in over 60 years I have yet to find a filter that does not come in glass in the size I need.

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2022

In the lab, with reference to color print selective masking, I use several Wratten filter types which never have been available in glass. They were hard to find and expensive to begin with, and are impossible to find now. I take good care of them. Many gel filters are also prone to fading under certain circumstances. The Kodak Wratten handbook is superb for rating them in this respect, along with full spectrograms and other relevant information. They still have valid scientific applications too. But up in the hills, with sand and sleet blowing around, and sweaty fingers, or around the beach with its salt spray .... different story.

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2022

Just get beyond the town limits of the Shire of Hobbit land, fabberyman, and you might discover something totally obvious yourself. And I most certainly wasn't "bashing" Ansel. Tools options have changed. Even film performance and quality control has greatly improved since his time, especially since his early days; and that's not "bashing" Kodak or anyone else either. It's just the way it is. The choice of either Wratten gels or plain colored glass was all there was in the 1920's.

AgX · Mar 9, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Gel filters are fragile compared to glass filters. I would not use one unless I had to and in over 60 years I have yet to find a filter that does not come in glass in the size I need.

Quite some gelatin filters had been laminated between glass panes.

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2022

Tiffen substituted colored thermal foil, eliminating the need for balsam or whatever cementing the two sheets of glass together, so represented a distinct improvement at one point in time. But in terms of image-forming light in relation to lenses, the thinness of a true gel was its main advantage, early-on at least.

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 10, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Is this a trick question?

It's not a trick question., You spend $1400 on an expensive lens and then put a cheap filter over it to save $30 that has less than stellar glass or coatings that could add distortions or flare. What's frugal about that?

BrianShaw · Mar 10, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
It's not a trick question., You spend $1400 on an expensive lens and then put a cheap filter over it to save $30 that has less than stellar glass or coatings that could add distortions or flare. What's frugal about that?

What is your measure of “stellar” or “less than stellar”? So far it seems to be price and reputation, which may or may not be completely true. Can you measure or see the difference? I think that’s the point… except for exceedingly discriminating eyes there is no discernible difference between mid-grade and high-grade filters. If you are implying “buy the best” to hedge your bet because you can’t tell the difference… well, that’s fine…

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 10, 2022

BrianShaw said:
What is your measure of “stellar” or “less than stellar”? So far it seems to be price and reputation, which may or may not be completely true. Can you measure or see the difference? I think that’s the point… except for exceedingly discriminating eyes there is no discernible difference between mid-grade and high-grade filters. If you are implying “buy the best” to hedge your bet because you can’t tell the difference… well, that’s fine…

Let's see. If I couldn't tell the difference, why buy a $1400 lens in the first place? The fact is we are trusting price and reputation and what others say.

In any case, back to our example, the lens at $1400 plus 35 = $1435 or the lens at $1400 + $75 (better filter) = $1475. That's a $40 difference or $40/1435= 2.7% difference. You can use the filter with other lenses probably. So the percentage is even less. Of course, everyone has to make their own decision about what's valuable to them.

BrianShaw · Mar 10, 2022

LOL... you must have been an accountant... just a financial assessment and no technical/artistic assessment of the assumption that a $75 filter is better than a $35 filter. That might not be a completely correct assumption for most people. No problem... you said it best, "Of course, everyone has to make their own decision about what's valuable to them."

Sal Santamaura · Mar 10, 2022

For all those who love to argue but don't rely on data, here's one of the best comparisons done lately:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Carry on.

BrianShaw · Mar 10, 2022

... and to help clarify, since it's a lot of technical reading before one gets to the conclusion about protective filters. It seems fair to assume that the conclusions might generalize to other filters also.

Filters that had no significant effect: All B&W, Canon Protect, Chiaro 98 UVAT, Heliopan Protection, Heliopan UV SH-PMC, Hoya HD Protector, Hoya HMC UV, MeFoto Lens Karma, Nikon Neutral, Tiffen Ultra Clear, Tiffen HC, Zeiss T* UV

Filter may have had an adverse effect: Hoya NXT HMC UV, Tiffen Clear;
...
Filter had a significant adverse effect: Chiaro 90 UVAT, Chiaro 99 UVBTS
...
The bigger question, the one I didn’t want to consider, would be ‘is there sample variation in something as simple as a filter’? The reason I wonder is the Chiaro results. I’m not surprised that the $10 Chiaro isn’t as good as the $50 filter. But it is surprising that the $100 filter is far worse than their $50 filter in this test.
...
The Hoya, B&W, and Marumi filters on the list above all have good reputations and are reasonably priced. They should all do just fine. As always, use in the field is the ultimate proof, but these are what I’d select from. It might be that in your own type of photography you might find one is superior to another.

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 10, 2022

BrianShaw said:
... and to help clarify, since it's a lot of technical reading before one gets to the conclusion about protective filters. It seems fair to assume that the conclusions might generalize to other filters also.

Those are the clear ones, no? What about polarizing and contrast filters for BW? Grad ND, etc? You get into color changes, etc. In any case, how do most people pick lenses other than reputation and price?

Sal Santamaura · Mar 10, 2022

Sal Santamaura said:
For all those who love to argue but don't rely on data, here's one of the best comparisons done lately:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/...

Within the comments to that one is a link to this, done ten years earlier, which might provide more "real world" images for those less technically inclined:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Is this a trick question?

Alan Edward Klein said:
It's not a trick question., You spend $1400 on an expensive lens and then put a cheap filter over it to save $30 that has less than stellar glass or coatings that could add distortions or flare. What's frugal about that?

So are you walking around with one leg longer than the other? 'cause I was pulling your leg.

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 10, 2022

You got me!

AgX · Mar 11, 2022

Sal Santamaura said:
For all those who love to argue but don't rely on data, here's one of the best comparisons done lately:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Carry on.

As already argued above, those tests only make sense if reflecting ones own manner of photography. How many of us take photos of street lanterns at night with a filter on and then are concerned about ghosting?

(Which does not exclude that I read these tests and had my thoughts and sometimes wondered about some filters. I am even considering designing a lens test which includes light-spots, but still then I am able to evaluate such results for my own photography.)

And I read a lot of discussions here about the merits of old lenses, which I myself only use, but then there are tests of most modern lenses wich show a vast higher resolutin or better MFT. Why then here is no general call to only use these most modern lenses, but instead discussion is only on filters?
(Some achievement could be made by deficits on other level which then could be corrected by image computing instead, by I guess you got my point.)

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 11, 2022

AgX said:
As already argued above, those tests only make sense if reflecting ones own manner of photography. How many of us take photos of street lanterns at night with a filter on and then are concerned about ghosting?

(Which does not exclude that I read these tests and had my thoughts and sometimes wondered about some filters. I am even considering designing a lens test which includes light-spots, but still then I am able to evaluate such results for my own photography.)

And I read a lot of discussions here about the merits of old lenses, which I myself only use, but then there are tests of most modern lenses wich show a vast higher resolutin or better MFT. Why then here is no general call to only use these most modern lenses, but instead discussion is only on filters?
(Some achievement could be made by deficits on other level which then could be corrected by image computing instead, by I guess you got my point.)

But photographers argue about lenses too. And cameras. And film. And everything. In fact, I think it's sometimes more fun to argue about photography than take pictures.

BrianShaw · Mar 11, 2022

You don’t say. LOL

Sirius Glass · Mar 11, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
But photographers argue about lenses too. And cameras. And film. And everything. In fact, I think it's sometimes more fun to argue about photography than take pictures.

If you stripped out all the arguing on this website, there would be pitiful little to read.

DREW WILEY · Mar 11, 2022

You can't be sirius about that statement?

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 11, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
If you stripped out all the arguing on this website, there would be pitiful little to read.

We're not arguing. We're debating.

B+W "Basic" filters vs. F-Pro

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency