HOYA UV Filters for Digital Cameras

I noticed that Hoya produce a UV filter "designed exclusively for use with digital cameras," and was wondering if any of you have bought it and whether one can actually see a difference from the normal UV filters they make. The filter is called Pro 1 Digital.


thanks

Lucio Gomes said:

I noticed that Hoya produce a UV filter "designed exclusively for use with digital cameras," and was wondering if any of you have bought it and whether one can actually see a difference from the normal UV filters they make. The filter is called Pro 1 Digital.
thanks

Click to expand...

I do not believe that it is a good as the basic 'Pro1', but check with the guy9s) at www.2filter.com (sales@2filter.com). They will give you the best, honest answer....and good prices.

Personally, I have stopped using filters...except for CPs...or in "hazardous" environments...i.e. beach, etc. I know this is akin to a "religious" arguement, but I have become convinced that even very good filters are prone to diminish IQ.

John

now is as good a time as ever to bring out one little piece of contrarian info.
Leica (the uber optics maker) in their infinite wisdom to resolve the UV/IR issue in the M8 gave every owner a set Filters to resolve this issue. is that not contrary to the mantra of the bare naked lens?

Reference:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06112402leicam8fixes.asp

Yes, but it's also a kludge to fix what is arguably a defect in the camera.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Steven Sinski said:

Leica (the uber optics maker) in their infinite wisdom to resolve the UV/IR issue in the M8 gave every owner a set Filters to resolve this issue. is that not contrary to the mantra of the bare naked lens?

Click to expand...

It is, but it also is the only way to solve the issue in a cost effective manner.

The underlying issue is that the incident rays of a non-retro focus lens design, especially on wider angle designs, will cause an ineffectiveness in a hot-mirror filter especially towards the corners compared to the center. Also, an added layer of plan-parallel glass just in front of the sensor with cause optical deterioration, which is exaclty what they wanted to avoid (and which bit them in the tail).

With the chosen compromise, depending on the filter used, now they only have to deal with the IR-reflection mis-match between center and corners (by reading the lens ID and 'correcting' in software). The optical degradation is probably less than from something close to the sensor.

Bart

i'm sorry, did you say cost effective manner? i really don't no how to approach that statement?

Steven Sinski said:

i'm sorry, did you say cost effective manner? i really don't no how to approach that statement?

Click to expand...

For one, a curved front lens element with a dichroitic coating which is part of the optical lens design, would not degrade the image and yet better handle the IR sensitivity of the sensor. 'Small' down side is that one needs to replace one's lenses for that to work. Would be costly if Leitz would have to swap those for free, even if they did it for one lens of choice, like they offer 2 free filters for existing lenses.

So again, the lens filter is a compromise, and it doesn't cost them as much as better alternatives. It's all caused by inherent design limitations, i.e. the close proximity of the lens' exit pupil to the sensor array.

Bart

so in reality it is an inherent design flaw and this its their way of back peddling. with all due respect they are fairly lucky that they have a large group of buyers who will drink their brand of Kool Aid.

we should go no further into this as we have diverted this thread from its original path which we shouldn't do that

Steven Sinski said:

so in reality it is an inherent design flaw ...

Click to expand...

No, it's a physical limitation they could not have designed around otherwise, unless they had created a totally new camera system, and lenses to boot. So let's call it a design choice.

we should go no further into this as we have diverted this thread from its original path which we shouldn't do that

Click to expand...

As you wish. It's alway possible to open a new thread, if you think it's going to lead to something not yet exchanged/explored.

Bart

Lucio Gomes said:

I noticed that Hoya produce a UV filter "designed exclusively for use with digital cameras," and was wondering if any of you have bought it and whether one can actually see a difference from the normal UV filters they make. The filter is called Pro 1 Digital.

Click to expand...

Can't speak from personal experience with the "Pro digital" line of the Hoya/Kenko filters, but some perusal on the Web revealed that the "digital" versions seem to have (additional) multi-coating to reduce "lens flare and ghosting caused by reflections".
Their polarization filters seem to have blackend glass edges to achieve reduced reflections. Makes one wonder about the non-'Digital' ones though.

Bart

yes marketing does do its best to get you to wonder