Is there a difference between Hoya vs. Rodelstock UV filter

Happy Hopping

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,837
Hoya UV filter is from Japan, Rodelstock is from Germany. I have a 17 - 85 mm lens that need a 67 mm filter. But the price difference is more than double, Hoya is very cheap.

Is there any difference when I view a dozen JPG between photos taken by the 2 different UV filters w/ the same lens?
 
Morning mate,

Let me answer your question. You don't want to put in front of your lens garbage. If you must have a filter UV or other wise you need to spend a fair amount of coin. You are right there is a difference. The Rodenstock is much better than the Hoya of that.

Let me suggest at least one I would put on my lens.

B+W 67mm MRC UV - One of the best IMHO.
 
It really depends on the quality of the lens as well. If you have a mediocre lens than you won't see one bit of a difference between those two filters. If you have a lens that is actually pretty good, then you will benefit from the better (Rodelstock) filter.
 
I would suggest no filter at all. Sensors are not affected by UV like film was.
 
Rage, i always have an UV filter on just for the protection of my lens....
 
PS-RagE said:
I would suggest no filter at all. Sensors are not affected by UV like film was.
Click to expand...

That is my first suggestion, I dont use anything but filters that make a difference (really only CPLs).


Now, onto the whole filter quality game. It comes up a lot on some other photography sites I am on...pretty much if you buy a good quality multicoated filter you should not be able to tell the difference between them. Many swear by B+W, I dont and I think they are overpriced.

Hoya/Kenko Pro 1 is just as good as far as optics go. The B+W ones mount a bit nicer and are a bit more solid, but for the price difference and no noticeable difference in optics, the Pro 1 is my choice. Beware that these companies have many grades of optics. For example Hoya makes many other lines that are MUCH cheaper and will make noticeable differences.

All that said, even the grand daddy B+W can cause artifacts and issues in some situations with some lenses, so it is better to only use a filter when you need to if you are going for the best performance. If you still want the filter protection, just make sure to go with something multicoated like the Pro 1.

A GREAT source for them is www.hvstar.com. They have a few other names as well and sell mostly on eBay. Many many many reviews of people ordering from them and all things seem to point to them being genuine. The prices are awesome as well as is the service.

B+W MRC:
http://hvstar.net/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=46

Pro 1 D:
http://hvstar.net/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=115
 
Alright between B&W vs. Rodelstock, which one is better? The price seems to be the same, I got the price of B&W at $79, and the Rodelstock at $83. They are both for 17-85mm lens, Non multi-coated.

Grentz:
As to the link above, it seems very cheap compares to the local prices I got, a germany filter can't be that cheap?
 
Happy Hopping said:
Grentz:
As to the link above, it seems very cheap compares to the local prices I got, a germany filter can't be that cheap?
Click to expand...

Yes, it can. Read the reviews from many sites and learn how most dealers are just WAY overpriced on filters. hvstar/besteastern is totally legit and reliable, better than a lot of US dealers in fact. Their shipping can take awhile (up to around 2 weeks until delivery from order date) because it is international, but they ship the items quick.

Some threads talking about it:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=462443&highlight=hvstar
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=314106

Your prices seem to indicate you are looking at a local dealer or large retail chain? That much for non-MRC is really bad. The B+W MRC 67mm is only $50 from B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11992-REG/B_W_66070236_67mm_UV_Haze_010.html
 
Happy Hopping said:
Alright between B&W vs. Rodelstock, which one is better? The price seems to be the same, I got the price of B&W at $79, and the Rodelstock at $83. They are both for 17-85mm lens, Non multi-coated.

Grentz:
As to the link above, it seems very cheap compares to the local prices I got, a germany filter can't be that cheap?
Click to expand...

Forget the Rodenstock. Get teh B=W MRC. Worth every penny, or do what Rage says and skip it. Up to you.
 
I vote the B+W, they are a fine filter. I use Hoyas as well. I just have a UV filter on for protection and, to keep the dust off my lense. Here in Az I would constantly be cleaning off dust, which would not be great on my lense coatings.
 
I can buy B+W, but I don't want a MRC, I want to take the photo as is, the only reason I need the UV filter is to protect any possible scratch on the lens.

So, if you guys don't mind me asking, why is it that B+W better than Rodenstock? As to Hoya, since there is a reasonable difference, I'll skip it since these filter, I only buy it once unless I scratch it.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I can buy B+W, but I don't want a MRC, I want to take the photo as is, the only reason I need the UV filter is to protect any possible scratch on the lens.

So, if you guys don't mind me asking, why is it that B+W better than Rodenstock? As to Hoya, since there is a reasonable difference, I'll skip it since these filter, I only buy it once unless I scratch it.
Click to expand...

Then you totally dont understand what MRC is, no offense. You are modifying the picture more without MRC....In order from least modified to most:
-Bare Lens
-Multicoated (MRC)
-Single Coated
-Non-Coated

Hoya is not a sub-par brand, they are very close if not right with B+W when you use their Pro1 stuff.

Honestly, do as you like, but if you came in here wanting advice you have shot down pretty much all of it you have gotten. Go buy the Rodenstock you keep talking about and pay a ton more than you have to for it and be done with it.
 
You want multicoated.

I use Heliopan UV filters when I'm in sketchy environments otherwise I use nothing. The top notch Hoya and B+Ws are pretty good.
 
Grentz said:
Then you totally dont understand what MRC is, no offense. You are modifying the picture more without MRC....In order from least modified to most:
-Bare Lens
-Multicoated (MRC)
-Single Coated
-Non-Coated
.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why? Because according to this link that you post from the above:

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=46

the photo on the left is w/o any filter, and once the MRC is installed, the sky looks different. If MRC is the least modified compares to bare len, then how can the sky color change that much?

Also, I use this camera solely for taking photos of my bunnies, I don't use it for any other purpose, I don't care about outdoor high rise building view, mountain/river view etc., 99.99% of all my photos are for indoor and outdoor (back yard) photos of my bunnies. Would this MRC filter changes the result of my bunny photos?
 
I don't think you need any filter at all then if taking photos of your bunnies is all you do. It's not a dangerous situation where the lens is in jeopardy.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I don't understand why? Because according to this link that you post from the above:

http://hvstar.net/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=46

the photo on the left is w/o any filter, and once the MRC is installed, the sky looks different. If MRC is the least modified compares to bare len, then how can the sky color change that much?

Also, I use this camera solely for taking photos of my bunnies, I don't use it for any other purpose, I don't care about outdoor high rise building view, mountain/river view etc., 99.99% of all my photos are for indoor and outdoor (back yard) photos of my bunnies. Would this MRC filter changes the result of my bunny photos?
Click to expand...

They show it for effect and it is a stock example. UV filters do not modify the picture or darken it or anything. MRC coating does not change that fact.
 
Happy Hopping said:
Also, I use this camera solely for taking photos of my bunnies, I don't use it for any other purpose, I don't care about outdoor high rise building view, mountain/river view etc., 99.99% of all my photos are for indoor and outdoor (back yard) photos of my bunnies. Would this MRC filter changes the result of my bunny photos?
Click to expand...

All "protective" filters will degrade your image quality to some degree and add the potential for more lens flare. A multicoated filter made by a good manufacturer will be the least harmful. If it's really good, you won't notice that it's there most of the time.
 
lan said:
I don't think you need any filter at all then if taking photos of your bunnies is all you do. It's not a dangerous situation where the lens is in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

they hop towards me, when their nose touches the len, they can bite on it. Last time they bite off the eye cap of an old analog camcorder. :D
 
Grentz said:
They show it for effect and it is a stock example. UV filters do not modify the picture or darken it or anything. MRC coating does not change that fact.
Click to expand...

Alright guys, I'll go w/ either the Rodelstock or the B+W, I figure I don't need to care for the price difference btwn. the hoya vs. these 2.
 
Happy Hopping said:
they hop towards me, when their nose touches the len, they can bite on it. Last time they bite off the eye cap of an old analog camcorder. :D
Click to expand...

Wow, that's literally wild. I wouldn't let a bunny get anywhere near my gear. Are you playing with them up close or do they just jump at you from the ground and touch the camera?

The camera would be useless in such a situation anyhow since that lens can't focus that close. I would use a more telephoto lens personally.
 
I would just like to point out that "from Japan" hardly means "lower quality" when it comes to optics or cameras. Keep in mind that pretty much all high-end camera makers except some of the few remaining medium format ones (Hasselblad comes to mind), are Japanese. If you have DSLR, chances are it was either made in Japan, designed in Japan, or by Japanese people, or designed by people working for a Japanese company.


As for filters, get one with as little filtering as possible just to protect the lens.
 
lan said:
Wow, that's literally wild. I wouldn't let a bunny get anywhere near my gear. Are you playing with them up close or do they just jump at you from the ground and touch the camera?
.
Click to expand...

all I did is to take close up, say w/i 1 ft or so, and one of my bun will move towards me as he is curious as to the camera itself.
 
I use Hoya filters on my lenses, but all of my lenses are pretty cheap anyways.

I shoot tournament paintball a lot so the UV filter is critical, I have cracked 2 and gotten shot in the front of the lens countless other times. I use hoya because they are cheap and I don't mind replacing them when they get cracked.The lens I use most often is the 75-300 f/4-5.6 from canon.
 
Unless you sport L-class glass (a professional lens) ... paying heaps for a professional filter is silly.

The protective benefits of any UV(0) at the coast (or in the bush) ... far outweigh that of the optics.
The glare-cutting benefits of any Circular Polariser far outweigh the minute differences in quality between products.

Quit measuring phalluses and get snapping! ;)
 
Hyperion said:
The protective benefits of any UV(0) at the coast (or in the bush) ... far outweigh that of the optics.
The glare-cutting benefits of any Circular Polariser far outweigh the minute differences in quality between products.
Click to expand...


One who obviously has not been a victim of a cheaper filter I see...it can really screw up your pictures even on a cheaper lens...
 
I now have the money for the Rodenstock filter. Just before I go to pick up the 67 mm UV MC filter, some guy at a camera store said the filter does filter out a very small amount of blue, but not noticeable. Is that true?
 
Are these the killer bunnies of Monty Python fame? If so, perhaps a longer zoom is more appropriate...

Seriously, a lens hood might do you more good if you want to protect from scratches and maintain IQ.
 
If you are just using the glass as a lens protector, then I would get the Nikon Clear glass filter. Then you have zero color shift. They are coated to kill glare as well. I have a couple of them because I dont like the color casts some of the UVs put out.
 
botw said:
Are these the killer bunnies of Monty Python fame? If so, perhaps a longer zoom is more appropriate...

Seriously, a lens hood might do you more good if you want to protect from scratches and maintain IQ.
Click to expand...

You know, I never thought about it. I saw in that Canon promote DVD of this British photographer taking various photos using various lens. And in all those photos, he uses the hood.

And in the high end Hasselblad, they use a similar hood
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top