CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

CY metal hoods and filters help

D

dfm

Dear all: I am about aquire step-up rings, metal hoods and a variety of filters for my C/y lenses(35 2.8/50 1.4/85 1.4/135 2.8 and soon 200 3.5/4.0). I hope this is not too dopey a question, but: as I need step-up rings to 86mm for all the hoods, should I use all 86mm filters, placing them between the ring and metal hoods? Or should I buy 55mm and 67mm filters for the appropriate lenses, placing them between lens and step-up ring? WHat about circular polarizers? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

DAvid
 
R

rickd

No, you should stick with each lens' basic filter size. Economically, buying 86mm filters will be brutal and more importantly, the hoods won't shade them as effectively because the first glass surface will be more exposed placed in front of the step-up ring than it would be placed behind it.

I think a circular polarizer may be required for certain Contax bodies, but I don't know which ones. None of mine requires one (the lens doesn't determine whether you'll need one).

--Rick
 
D

dfm

Thanks Rick, I was a little confused. I know that the larger filter sizes would be more expensive but thought I might not have to duplicate all my filter choices for both 55 and 67mm. I already have a 55mm B+W circ. Polarizer - wether circ. Polarizer is absolutely required for my 159 and RTS II I can't remember, but I have always used the circ. version going back to my Leica R4 days (required for proper metering with R4).
 

colin

Well-Known Member
As well as the Leica SL.(1968)
Leitz were one of, if not the first, to require a circular polariser for their metering systems.
The need for circ.pols only increased with AF cameras
 
R

rickd

Hi David,

On filters and filter prices, as an ex&le take a B+W multicoated UV 010:

55mm $30
67mm $45
86mm $110

The two smaller filters are a whopping $35 less than the single 86. Since they'll also work a little better in back- and side-lit situations, and since they'll be better protected from impact and dirt, I can't come up with a single compelling reason to favor using the 86 (which isn't to say it wouldn't work).

On the linear/circular polarizer question, I have a hard time finding definitive statements from Contax. I know my RTS, 139 and G2 don't require a circular. The Aria and N1 manuals are mute on the topic, although I suspect the N1 requires one due the the AF. With the Aria it depends on the metering design and whether they use semi-silvered mirroring to split the light path for metering (at least that's my crude understanding of it).

I'd be quite happy to be set straight on the matter! The Contax FAQs don't discuss filters for the Aria or N1.

--Rick
 
R

rickd

"I confirm a circular polar is requested for ARIA."

Thanks!

--Rick
 
D

dfm

Thanks Rick. I am now a little confused as to why I was confused re filter sizes in the first place! Clearly it is both better and more economical to go with the smaller sizes to fit directly to the lenses.

David
 
M

mikel

Rick,

> On filters and filter prices, as an ex&le take
> a B+W multicoated UV 010:
>
> 55mm $30
> 67mm $45
> 86mm $110

I see a lot of people for some reason get confused about B+W filters. Their MRC filters are "multi-resistance coated", which gives them extra scratch resistance when compared to their regular filters. However, *ALL* B+W filters are multicoated to improve light transmission and minimize glare/flare and ghosting regardles of whether they have MRC or not. Thus, taking the filters you listed as ex&le and concentrating on normal, non-MRC versions, smaller diameter filters become even less expensive:

B+W UV 010:
55mm - $ 17.50
67mm - $ 29.50
86mm - $ 76.95

Personally I never buy MRC filters. Usually if you damage the filter, you damage it quite a bit and thus even MRC might not be able to prevent a scratch on the surface. In this case, it's just easier to buy new filter and it's cheaper as well - doesn't make you feel too bad about it.
However, I would probably consider getting a single MRC UV 010 filter for use on most heavily used lens, such as P50 f/1.4 in my case.

In rest of cases I don't see much point of using MRC filters.

Just my opinion.

By the way, this discussion actually made me think about something else. What about Contax rubber hoods? Are filters supposed to be mounted on the front thread of the lens (and then hood on top of them) or on the front thread of hood itself (which is already mounted on the lens)? The latter would make more practical sense (easier to change filters), but what about vignetting? I'm simply not sure if these hoods were designed to be used that way or not. Does anyone know?

Mike.
 
J

jgban

I have 3 different Contax soft hoods, and they are all different:
The G-11, for both 50mm Planars, the 35/2.8 and the 40-80/3.5, is threaded at the "narrow" end (the 55mm). You can thread it onto the lens and then thread a 55mm filter on it ("inside" the hood) ot attach the filter first onto the lens and then thread the hood onto the filter.
The G-15, for the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4 has to be hold onto the lenses with either the "hood holder" (67mm thread) that is included (but separate from the hood itself) or with a 67mm filter. It will not attach to the lens without one or the other.
Another soft hood, that I bought second-hand supposedly for the 28-70mm, fits on the lens just pushing it on, and you can use the thread on the lens to attach a filter. If the filter is level with the lens, you can attach the filter first and then push the filter on.
The three hoods, however, have a thread on the wider end, so I suppose you could attach an 86mm filter there.

Juan
 
M

mikel

Juan,

> The G-15, for the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4

Actually, G-15 is for 28-70 zoom lens. G-13 is for Planar 85mm f/1.4 and G-14 is for 35mm f/1.4.

G-11 is almost "universal" - D35 f/2.8, P50 f/1.4, 45 Tessar, 60mm compact makro, S85 f/2.8 and VS 80-200 can be used with it.

For Distagon 28mm f/2.0 and f/2.8 you have to use G-12.

G-11, G-12 and G-13 all have "outside" threads. The question is - is it there for the lens cap or for the filter? I'm simply not sure if it will provide platform solid enough to mount the filter strictly perpendicular to optical axis (parallel to lenses).


Mike.
 
J

jgban

Mike,
I have the G-15 box in fron of me. The label says: 70 rubber F/35 f1.4/85 f1.4.
There is no mystery to it: as the hood has a diameter of 70mm, it can be hold onto all those lenses with the holder or a 67mm filter.
My guess is my version of the hood antedates the existence of the VS 28-70mm.

Your point is well taken. For the G-11, I would use the inside thread (55mm).

Juan
 
M

mikel

Juan,

>I have the G-15 box in fron of me. The label says:
> 70 rubber F/35 f1.4/85 f1.4.

Aa, it probably has 70mm diameter, that's why you need either a filter mounted on the lens first, or the hood holder before you can use the hood. That's why G-13 was specifically designed for P85 I believe - so that you can just screw it on.

> Your point is well taken. For the G-11, I would
> use the inside thread (55mm).

I think you misunderstood me. That "outside" thread is what's facing the world, while inside is the one you use to screw your hood onto the lens. Maybe "front" and "rear" are words better fit to describe what I meant. So, which one to use with say G-11 depends more on the lens you're using, so the question is whether:
1. 35mm is already wide enough to suffer from vignetting when filter is mounted on the outer thread of hood
2. Is the filter going to be parallel to lenses when you mount it there.

That's basically something that I don't know for sure. I have been mounting filter on outside thread up until now without any problems, but I started using D28 relatively recently and that's where vignetting might potentially appear (haven't seen it yet though).

Mike.
 
M

mikel

> 1. 28mm is already wide enough

I meant 35mm, not 28mm. Corrected in the post, but message already went out to all the email subscribers.

Mike.
 
M

mikel

Ohh, made the same mistake twice! Time to go to bed!

I'm talking about combination of G-11 and 35mm (not 50mm or 28mm).

In the last part of my post I mention D28 though, that's because description of the lens on Contax's website says that the filter can't be used with soft hood and D28 (while curiously the outer thread is still present) and I ran a test roll with filter mounted on outer thread and can't notice any vignetting...

Mike.
 

wbesz

Well-Known Member
Regarding B+W MRC (Multi-Resistance) filters, or standard, my choice is MRC.

All you need to do, is to check the reflection in bright light (or daylight) and you will see a VERY big difference between the two.

The MRC coating (flare reduction) looks as good as the Nikons I still have, but these are expensive (both B+W and Nikons), ..as are Contax filters. Contax are very good. For my Contax cameras, I am happy with the best: Contax and MRC.

William
 

wbesz

Well-Known Member
Forgot to mention, ...and of course, the B+W MRC are scratch resistant!

Cheers, William

>type your text here!
 

rico

Well-Known Member
I must correct the posting by Mike L. For a multicoated filter from B+W, you MUST select MRC. To quote Schneider documentation:

All B+W filters for color film, black and white film, neutral density, infrared material, and "special" filters are treated with a single layer anti-reflection coating. They are also available with multi-resistant-coating MRC. B+W polarizers are available with optional multiresistant-coating MRC. The nature of polarization renders the single antireflection coating unnecessary.

Soft focus, trick lenses, fog filters, spectra, speed effect, star effect, double sunny, and prismes are only available uncoated because coating would not improve their performance in any way.

Here is their complete (26MB) filter catalog:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


For the bandwidth-impaired, individual chapters can be downloaded from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


While this is a product catalog, it also includes production notes, spectral absorption graphs, and tips for filter use. I use MRC for two reasons: the hard coating, and the superior anti-reflective properties. Reflections off the planar surface of a filter can cause ghost images, especially of point sources at night.
 
M

mikel

Rico and William,

"multicoated" filter with what?


If you're concerned with light-transmission, B+W standard filters and MRC filters offer you EXACTLY the same thing. (Rico, just re-read the first paragraph of the quote you sent).

MRC looks differently because of extra layer of scratch-resistant coating. You can even simply ask some Schneider rep, he will tell you the same thing.

I shouldn't have mentioned "multicoating" in my post actually. I have never seen a filter that had anti-reflective *multi-layer* coating. They all usually have just single layer of coating on each side even though some manufacturers call them "multicoated".

By the way, most of Contax filters made in Germany were made from Schott glass. All B+W filters are made from Schott glass. Newer Contax filters are made in Japan, and thus, most likely, from Ohara glass. And AFAIK, Contax filters have single-layer coating as well.

Here is one more thing:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"Reflection-reducing multi-coatings ensure faithful and differentiated reproduction of
contrast and color brilliance.The new Multi Resistant Coating System (MRC) complements the existing coating process by means of an additional top layer that produces dramatic results:
The adhesion of moisture,dust and other dirt particles is reduced and the scratch-resistance of the surface is increased at the same time."


Mike.
 
R

rickd

Whew, am I ever learning a lot!

At present I only have a few B+W filters--a couple of 67mm's and some series VIIIs. They're pretty old, so I don't know how well they represent the current line. They may be coated but definitely aren't multicoated. One thing they all have in common is brass rings, making them much less likely to cause damage cross-threading on the lens than aluminum. Also, the threads are very well machined so they go on and off with ease.

I need to update my filter collection to accommodate some new lenses, so this discussion is very timely. I'll point out in passing that Hoya MC-series filters are, indeed multicoated and perform very well. Mine, however, have aluminum rings so are ultimately less desireable to me than the B+W and Contax filters.

Another filter question, why are multi-coated polarizers so rare and so very costly? Is it difficult to coat them for some reason?

--Rick
 
Top