RE: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Actually most filters ARE COATED, even the cheap ones, just not multicoated. (Hoya still makes some REALLY CHEAP uncoated ones though). The difference between single coated and multicoated filters is extremely slight as with only two air-glass interfaces, the single coated filters have only approx 2% loss/reflection which is going to be invisible most of the time. I would avoid the uncoated ones but I am telling you they are very rare. JCO -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 8:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before) I paid ca. $30 for my new 58mm Hoya circular polarizer at MediaMarkt. Uncoated? HMC? S-HMC? That makes a big difference to the price. I'm happy with the performance of my SMC lenses. I don't see the point of wasting most of that benefit by putting uncoated glass at the first interface to the outside world. It's the old, old argument - why bother to buy an expensive lens if you're only going to stick a cheap filter on the front of it? I probably wouldn't pay $100 for a filter if it were only going on a $100 lens, but my FA 28-105 also takes the standard 58mm filter size. And, unfortunately, it's mostly the cheap uncoated filters that show up at the second-hand sales.
RE: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Hi John of course you are right when it comes to the S-HMC and multicoated type of filters. They are rarely found second hand and the prices you quoted seem to be about the same here. I have never seen a S-HMC filter second hand and the yellow Pentax filter was not SMC too. I see UV or skylight HMC Hoya (Hama) filters very often second hand here. And as far as I have read B+W filters are considered to be of quite good quality, they do not mention the type of coating on the filters (51, 81B, Close-Up)) I have. -- The 58mm polarizer form Hoya I got here seems to be uncoated which would explain the low price a bit. (Nothing is written on the filter, as JCO wrote maybe it's single coated) I really like the effect of polarizers, so I use them quite often, also in the last PESO: Artbar to take out the reflections of the shop window. Whether it is useful at all to put filters on the lens (for protection etc) has been discussed before here .. ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before) I paid ca. $30 for my new 58mm Hoya circular polarizer at MediaMarkt. Uncoated? HMC? S-HMC? That makes a big difference to the price.
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Uncoated glass surface reflects 4% of the light falling on it, single coated surface reflects 1.5% and multicoated - theoretically - 0.2%. Theoretical minimum is hard to get in practice. The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik). All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:21 PM Subject: Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before) JCOC The difference between single coated and multicoated filters JCOC is extremely slight as with only two air-glass interfaces, the JCOC single coated filters have only approx 2% loss/reflection which JCOC is going to be invisible most of the time. I would avoid the uncoated JCOC ones but I am telling you they are very rare. I beg to differ. The difference between singlecoated and multicoated filters is tremendous. Especially with light sources in the frame. Remember, it's not the reflection of the filter but the bouncing from the front element of lens into the filter and back. That's why Pentax invented the Ghostless filter back in 60s. They really work. The planar surface of the filter focuses light sources like bright bulbs perfectly back onto the film plane. I have seen many photographs where the difference between uncoated, singlecoated and MC filter shows very well, in that order of flare resistance. The uncoated are unusable, because you have a bright, in-focus secondary image of the lightbulb. Singlecoated diminish the reflection but it is still visible if there is strong contrast. MC filters or Ghostless (non-planar) filters diminish the reflection to the point of almost nothing. That's my experience, and I shoot mostly available light where contrasts are high. Good light! fra
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Ah. The Leica experts. They first reduced film format to match it to 4x6 prints then spent a fortune to develop expensive lenses that could give you some larger prints from that format. Raimo K wrote: The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik).
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
The standard snapshot N size print for many decades was 3-1/2x4-1/2 inchs printed on 3-1/2 inch rolls. Then when 35mm became the standard (late 60's early 70's?) they increased that to 3-1/2x5 to match the 35mm negative. Then the new minilabs started using 6 rolls and offering 4x6. Now that has become standard. -- Caveman wrote: Ah. The Leica experts. They first reduced film format to match it to 4x6 prints then spent a fortune to develop expensive lenses that could give you some larger prints from that format. Raimo K wrote: The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik). -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
I paid ca. $30 for my new 58mm Hoya circular polarizer at MediaMarkt. Uncoated? HMC? S-HMC? That makes a big difference to the price. I'm happy with the performance of my SMC lenses. I don't see the point of wasting most of that benefit by putting uncoated glass at the first interface to the outside world. It's the old, old argument - why bother to buy an expensive lens if you're only going to stick a cheap filter on the front of it? I probably wouldn't pay $100 for a filter if it were only going on a $100 lens, but my FA 28-105 also takes the standard 58mm filter size. And, unfortunately, it's mostly the cheap uncoated filters that show up at the second-hand sales.
