Photoclubalpha

The title could also be; old vs. new filters. Is there a difference between the filters of the past that were designed for film, vs. the breed of today, reportedly designed for digital? Is it hype or a real difference?

Old Hydro wrote:The title could also be; old vs. new filters. Is there a difference between the filters of the past that were designed for film, vs. the breed of today, reportedly designed for digital? Is it hype or a real difference?

Interesting question.

Hoya quote coating on both sides and mounts for reduced reflection. This makes sense because with digital you want to reduce any reflection off the sensor reflecting back again off the lens or filter. But as far as I can tell Hoya were doing this already for quite some time, even on their cheaper ranges.

Harvey

Yes, there's a difference. The packaging has changed and the price has increased

I don't think there is any difference in quality between Hoya HMC, SHMC, Pro-1, Pro-1 Digital etc though I guess the Digital will have SHMC coating. Same for all other makes, Digital is now just being used to label the best filters.

Except, of course, some cheap makes where 'Digital' has purely been used to con people into thinking a plain old filter is now worth twice as much.

David

Thank to all for the information. I didn't think I had to replace all my old filters -- although I'm not sure the old Minolta Cir. Polarizing filters from my Minolta 9000 days, work as well with the Sony 850, as they did with the 9000. Or maybe its all in my memory.

My old circ pols still work well enough, but like all old polarisers, they are slightly cloudy now. That happens with polfilters after 20 years. It's not a massive change, just a very slight lack of clarity compared to a brand new one.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:My old circ pols still work well enough, but like all old polarisers, they are slightly cloudy now. That happens with polfilters after 20 years. It's not a massive change, just a very slight lack of clarity compared to a brand new one.

David

How do you tell they are cloudy? -- Besides holding a new and old filter side by side and looking? I wondered about my Minolta filters, only because I want to remember the sky turning more blue at locations I visited when they were newer, like 1988.

Also after your post on Hoya filters, I went pricing and found the their two best ones, are more then the Sony polarisers that Sony says have CZ coatings. I didn't expect that.

I shows as a slight reduction in contrast. You can not really see anything much different about the filters visually, but they seem to have aged a bit. However some of my expensive B+W pol filters aged even worse, they de-laminated with oyster shell marks where the glue had given way. And the Minolta circular pols are still perfectly usable. Really, most of my original 1980s Minolta filters including UVs are due for replacement. They get an atmospheric film which can't be cleaned off totally, just as old lenses will; from smoke, pollution, whatever.

We now live in a much cleaner place and don't have lots of open fires etc, and I think my lenses will survive better for the future.

Even so, this is all just the smallest difference imaginable. A vintage Minolta filter is probably going to do less damage to shots than a new cheap brand or plastic filter, even if the Minolta glass had some cleaning scratches (invisible to the eye) and has been around on lenses for 25 years. Brand new Sony CZ filters would be a luxury, but a very worthwhile one.

David

Actually, a year ago I bought a Sigma EX UV filter to replace my old Hoya HMC on the Zeiss 16-80 - Can't see any notable difference (the sigma is much thinner, and doesn't vignette; That's the sole reason I bought it). There would be a difference between non-coated, single coated and multi-coated - but multi-coated filters existed before most photographers switched to digital.