Hoya filters

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I don't know that there is a "best" because, as is usually the case in matters like this, the best tool for one job may not be the best tool for another. That being said, I have and use several Hoya HD filters and they've all proven to be excellent performers. The HD glass is reportedly 4x stronger, the HD CPL shoots faster and they're super easy to clean (most multi-coated filters are insanely hard to clean properly). I know you can spend a lot more for filters than what the Hoya's cost, but I'm not sure how much better performance you can get.

....
 

aroy

Senior Member
A simple question hopefully...

Which is the best Hoya filter range? I'm interested in Protectors, a Circular Polariser & maybe ND filter in future.

Their awful typo website is unclear: HOYA | The Difference is Clear

The HD range or the Pro1 range?
I use the less expensive Hoya HMC filters and they serve their purpose. The HD series are much better as they provide a relatively scratch free, smudge free surface, so if you can afford them then go for them.
HOYA | The Difference is Clear

Here is an old test I got on the net
UV filters test - Description of the results and summary - Lenstip.com
 

Deleted

Senior Member
Thanks for the link, @aroy. the test is a little old though & doesn't have the Hoya HD. It would have been interesting to see some Nikon filter results too.
@sonicbuffalo
I'd prefer the best I can get, Chris. A cheap filter on Nikon glass doesn't sit right with me. :(
[MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION], I think the Hoya HD filters may be the way to go. Although I don't think they have ND filters in the range yet.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
@Gorf.....I understand....and there are some that don't use filters at all as it distorts to a degree. I guarantee you can't see the difference in some of my pictures though. You'd never know.
 

crashton

Senior Member
Gorf- I've used Hoya filters over the years. Everything from the HMC to the Pro1. My eye can't tell a difference between them. I also use Nikon NC filters & L37c filters. Nikon is way too expensive for me as far as a polarizer goes I have a Hoya Pro1 polarizer & find it works very well for me.

In the past I bought some cheap Tiffen filters & wasn't happy, gave them away. Some say they can't see a difference, but I did. If you are going to use a filter buy quality.

The old filter no filter discussion comes into play. I'm a filter user always have been. Great lens protection that has saved me a lens or two over the years. If you want a polarizer it has to be a filter. ;)

Of late I'm using B+W filters. Very well made & not terribly expensive. I agree with you using a cheap filter on good glass saves you money, but can degrade your image.
 
Last edited:

Thumper_6119

Senior Member
Contributor
I have a set of Hoya IR filters, and they work really well and have great image quality (IMO). I think I paid $60-$75/each for the filters.
 

Deleted

Senior Member
@Gorf.....I understand....and there are some that don't use filters at all as it distorts to a degree. I guarantee you can't see the difference in some of my pictures though. You'd never know.

Lol! I understand that there can be some ghosting issues, for which you can just remove the filter for those shots.
 

Deleted

Senior Member
@crashton
Thanks for the info, I used Hoya filters on my old 35mm kit & I'm inclined to use them again. I like to keep my stuff very clean & feel easier cleaning a filter than the front lens.

I've read all the filter discussions I can find, both sides are valid & I must have changed my mind over them several times every day. It does matter how you will be using the lens though. Studio portraits can justify no filter, but a walkabout lens could bang on things & a landscape lens, especially used near the sea could get sea water spray on it.
 
Last edited:

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
... but a walkabout lens could bang on things & a landscape lens, especially used near the sea could get sea water spray on it.
People do sometimes forget that a lens can be subject to a lot more danger than just getting scratched or bumped. I shoot on the coast a lot and yeah, sea spray and salt residue on your lens SUCKS. I also spend a lot of time shooting in the deserts of southern California where the sand is more like flour, or talc, than the typical beach sand most people are familiar with. That stuff gets everywhere and sticks to glass like it's magnetized for it. All that being said, I happily extend an invitation to anyone who doesn't think a protective filter is necessary, that a lens hood is all you need to protect your lens. Sure thing... We'll do a half day at La Jolla Shores, drive out to Cougar Canyon for a few hours and then, at the end of the day, we'll compare notes on just how unnecessary a protective filter is.

EDIT: I suppose we could argue that you need to clean a filter the same as you would the lens itself. True enough. The difference, in my mind anyway, is that I can remove the nasty filter, hold it under a stream of warm running water in the kitchen sink, towel it off and be back in business in about two minutes. I personally don't like doing *anything* to the front lens element, but that's me and that's just how I like to do things.
....
 
Last edited:

crashton

Senior Member
I've used filters as lens protection for so long I feel very nervous when my front lens element is naked. Been using my new 10-100cx lens without a filter for a couple of weeks. It really worried me that I'd bash the lens into something. Just ordered a nice B+W filter a few minutes ago. :eek:
 
Top