UV Test: $10 S&W MC v. $60 Hoya S-HMC Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

UV Test: $10 S&W MC v. $60 Hoya S-HMC

Jun 19 2005: Over the past few years I've used excellent B+W and Hoya filters, and more recently, the inexpensive S&W and Fotodiox units (available on eBay). While certainly the overall quality and build of the B+Ws is exceptional, optically there isn't a meaningful difference in day-to-day shooting (i.e., in 98% of shooting). It seems to me that the key is multi-coating, and all four brands have this (of course, there are DEGREES of quality even here). But the B+W filters separate themselves really with build and ease of cleaning. For those more budget-minded, the lesser expensive alternatives are worthy of consideration. [Note: Under high-flare conditions, I have found that optimal IQ is attained with bare lens + hood. Adding any UV filter, even multi-coated, will cause a few additional "hot-spots" in your captures. IMO the very expensive B+W's and Heliopans are the best out there, but there isn't a "significant" difference in IQ under such harsh conditions between all the good MC UV filters. The point is that the bare lens with hood is still the best way to go, but if you want the physical protection that a MC UV filter offers, the lower cost versions are a good bet in 98% of your shooting conditions. FWIW, I keep MC UV filters on all my lenses, but given specific (e.g., flare) lighting, I remove them.]

UVs	UVTest	UVQuiz	DifferentColors
a70nouv-rsz	a70uv-rsz	b70nouvf8-rsz	b70uvf8-rsz
c70nouv-rsz	c70uv-rsz

post a comment

Petkal		25-Oct-2008 18:57
Well done, little buddie. Until someone has drawn this to my attention today on FM Gear Forum, I didn't even know you had done this sorta test. Some day I hope to see you branch out into DSLR testing, like ISO noise, true vs. advertised FPS etc. :) All the best. Peter

lightrules		10-Mar-2008 03:26
You want to get a circular polarizer (for AF reasons).

Som		10-Mar-2008 01:49
Hi, Have a 40D. Would a linear polarizer work on this, or should I get a Circular Polarizer? Thanks

Eric Seavey		13-Feb-2008 15:16
Regarding DSLRs and UV sensitivity: DSLRs are very insensitive to UV light, and therefore any observable differences using an UV blocking filter are due to the additional piece of glass (UV-filter). The observable differences by adding a UV blocking filter are slightly darker image and in some cases more flare. The Canon DSLRs are very insensitive to UV. To even record UV on a bright sunny day while blocking visible light and IR, we are talking in the order of 45-90 second exposures with a Canon. With many Nikons we are talking about bright sunny daytime exposures in the tenths of seconds to a few seconds, and Pentax 5 to 10 seconds. Compared to a typical exposure in the hundredth or thousandth of seconds on a bright sunny day for visible light, there is very little UV recording. The reason I know this is because I like doing UV photography, especially with flowers in the picture. Unfortunately it is also a difficult art, but the results are quite intriguing.

Guest		26-Jul-2007 13:30
Thanks again. I knew the site but not the article. BTW: it was born in Jul99 Pedro

lightrules		25-Jul-2007 16:14
Pedro, this link should help http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx . Enjoy.

Guest		25-Jul-2007 16:00
Thanks a lot. You're very helpful, as always ;-) I'm going for the Sigma. BTW: I haven't tested my new lens carefully, just 5 or 6 shots to see if everything OK - it is - because I only bought it last week and I have lots of work to do. Just curious: do you know where I can see the year the lens was build, only having the serial number ? I'm glad your site is still rocking. Thanks again. Pedro, from this side of the World www.visitportoandnorth.com

lightrules		25-Jul-2007 15:38
Pedro, good to hear from you. Greetings again from southern California. As for the UV, I would not hesitate with the Sigma DG MC UV. It's a very good quality UV. The B+W's are nice, maybe the best, but you're just not going to notice any real difference overall. Take care.

Guest		25-Jul-2007 13:15
Hi Jojo I would like your advice, again. Finaly I bought the 70-200 f4 L (used one), I want to buy the UV filter but, I can't find the Sigma EX, it seems that now there is only the DG version (in the box says "MultiCoating"). I've seen it for 28,00EUR and the B+W Fpro for 48,00EUR. I think the B+W is overpriced. Do you think the Sigma is OK ? Thanks. Take care. Pedro / Porto / Portugal

Tom Yi		14-Aug-2006 21:29
Hi Jojo, Hate to agree with you again, but you are right. For vast majority of shooting siutations a UV filter offers protection and does not degrade optics to any visible degree. When encountering situations where you are shooting into a strong light source, simply removing the filter lets you have the best of both worlds in my view. Thanks for the good work you are doing.

lightrules		26-Jul-2006 22:31
Greetings, your sensor is dirty. It needs a cleaning, see http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning . Very easy to do.

Ole		26-Jul-2006 21:59
I have som problems with small dark spots on my pictures with blue sky, could that have something to do with my UV filter ? se picture and additional info at this link (be sure to klick the image for bigger size to be able to see the spots) : http://eostest.blogspot.com/

Guest		07-Jul-2006 04:55
Finally! Its great to see a test like this! I ran a test to see if there was a big difference between protecting the lens with a high grade UV filter, and without filter. My conclusion is that in most cases under usual shooting conditions, most people or clients, can't tell a difference! I shoot a lot on the beach.. I like keeping salt spray and sand off the glass. We use 77mm B+W MRC UV 010 filters and find them wonderful. When it comes down to it, most people aren't usually shooting into the sun or having to worry about flare, ghosting, etc.. so I maintain that its perfectly fine to keep something over the lens. When conditions are such that the extra flass out front will degrade the photo.. simply take the darn thing off right? Right. Glad to see someone else out there testing for themselves and using their head for more than a hat rack. Good job!

lightrules		22-Jun-2006 16:28
Anytime, Chris. Just be prepared to get "flamed" by "UV/CP Name-Brand-Only" zealots when you say you got some multicoated filters off eBay. But I've yet to see any meaningful difference in the shots that count. Take care.

Chris Krueger		22-Jun-2006 16:02
Ah well, I rarely need slim filters anyway. Right now I'm shopping for a UV filter for the 100-400 I just bought (thanks in part to your "unfair test" comparison, and your 100-400+TC images), and saving $50+ after dropping a ton of money on a 100-400 and Kenko 1.4TC is very appealing! :) It sounds like S&W is the one to get... I was going to buy Fotodiox because they have their own web site at fotodiox.com, but I'll definitely grab an S&W UV filter from eBay, now. Likely a polarizer too, since it can share duty with my 17-40. Thanks again for the tests, and the prompt responses!

lightrules		21-Jun-2006 21:41
AFAIK, S&W doesn't offer "slim" filters of any kind. However, Fotodiox does. Optically these two (inexpensive) brands are the best I've used to-date (with regards to non-big-name brands). I have no hesitation recommending them, especially the S&W's.

Chris Krueger		21-Jun-2006 21:34
Do you know if the slim S&W filters have front threads? No so much for stacking, but to attach a lens cap. I have a feeling I'm going to feel very silly everytime I look at the B+W slim filter on my 17-40, based on your experience with the S&W's! Thanks for the money-saving review!

lightrules		21-Jun-2006 18:30
Chris, I don't use the Fotodiox filters anymore. I have only used their "slim" SMC versions, but I didn't like their overall build quality; the glass tended to be "loose" with a little play if you shook the filter gently. I like the S&W MC filters much more (they don't have "slim" ones but their normal ones are built well and there is no play with them; they also clean very nicely, almost as well as the expensive B+W's). I have both B+W's and S&W's and for all intents and purposes, I can't tell the difference optically between them, even in flare conditions. Ultimately, people are going to have to get what they feel is best for them, but IMO, these inexpensive S&W's are excellent MC UV's. As for CP filters, I also use the S&W and think they're just fine.

Chris Krueger		21-Jun-2006 18:07
You tested a S&W filter, but it seems you consider Fotodiox pretty much the same thing. Are they simply the same filters rebranded? After seeing a 77mm UV filter for <$20 I'm very interested! Also, have you tested polarizers from either company? Thanks for bringing these filters to our attention! I can barely find any information on them anywhere on the web, but your tests show me all I need to know.

lightrules		05-Jun-2006 05:57
I would agree that the most important test of a UV filter is going to be under flare conditions. These were posted a long while back simply "confirming" that a decent MC UV filter doesn't degrade IQ to the naked eye for the MAJORITY of shots MOST people take under MOST lighting conditions. As for testing under flare conditions, while I haven't posted any official test shots, my opinion based on experience with various lenses in my bag (all of which use MC UV filters) is that there is very little added flare concerns vis-a-vis using no filter at all. Maybe some day I'll post these comparisons. But IMO MC filters are worth using for various reasons.

lightrules		02-Jun-2006 15:43
Pedro, that's an excellent UV filter with good multi-coating. Take care!

Guest		02-Jun-2006 09:26
Hi JoJo I've found near my job the Sigma EX UV 77mm. Do you think it's good for my 17-40L ? Kind regards Pedro

lightrules		03-Apr-2006 15:36
Pedro, that one will work but I can't confirm if it's multi-coated. Make sure to find out first.

Guest		03-Apr-2006 10:20
Hi Can you please tell me if this is THE Hoya filter: www.pixxass-shop.de/product_info.php?pName=HoyaUVFilterM77 ? I think the price is "too good" to be true. Thanks & KOTGW (BTW I have bought the 30D+17-40L) Pedro Porto/Portugal

lightrules		09-Jan-2006 04:55
That is a very helpful link; thanks for posting it. The key, in general, is to be sure you get a MULTICOATED one.

Jared Kipe		09-Jan-2006 04:22
I think the problem with the bad UV filters is contrast and more specifically flare. But its good to see that optically there is little differences. http://web.mit.edu/cjoye/www/photo/tests.html

lightrules		29-Dec-2005 06:44
Just be sure it's a multi-coated UV filter. Best wishes and enjoy the light.

RicZanotto		29-Dec-2005 00:35
I've bought a cheap UV filter (same origin of the S&W: china) and felt a bit ashamed of puting it on my lens. BUT now, after reading your test, there's no need to feel this way EVER again! Since the purpose mostly is to protect the lens, there is where it will be from now on. Thank you very much, fstopjojo!

Jonas Gustavsson		21-Jul-2005 14:00
I'm wondering if the small impact of a UV filer is due to the limited sensitivity of the sensors in the range where different brands of UV filters may be expected to differ - say 350-400 nm. Nice to be able to save some money though and thanks for the test, I'll sleep better now. :-)

click on thumbnails for full image