Novo to produce filter range using sapphire crystal and Gorilla Glass

[anthonyd]

No light loss for a polarizer???

Well, maybe if you send polarized light trough the exactly polarized filter, there will be not much loss.
But of course you will filter out much other (unpolarized) light.... thats why you use it.

Useless figure... but good for marketing.

Why is this figure useless? The company is claiming that there is no light loss in the light that is supposed to pass through. Off course the light with the "wrong" polarization is blocked, that's why you put the filter on in the first place. But a filter that blocks light of all polarities is a crappy one (or rather works like an ND filter), versus their filter (they claim) does not block virtually any of the light that you didn't want it to block. It's a confusing metric, I agree, but it's certainly not useless.

 

[SoullessPolack]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

to block out glare (look up Brewster's angle), this can make, for instance, leaves/fall foliage look more rich

to make the sky a deeper blue and make clouds pop out more

to cut through reflections and see through water and glass without as much surface reflection

the first and last above you can't make up for in post-processing and the second would be tricky and cause some damage to image quality and you still couldn't really quite match it anyway

Before you go telling people to look stuff up, you should look stuff up. What you're referring to is a circular polarizer, not a UV filter. UV filters don't give the sky a deeper blue or make the clouds pop out more. UV filters don't cut through reflection and see through water and glass. But guess what does? Circular polarizers! I'm surprised someone who has clearly spent hours upon hours reading photography forums still doesn't have a basic understanding of these two very basic filters.

******************************************************************************
Before any new photographer runs out and buys a UV filter based on what one person said, PLEASE READ THIS! UV filters don't do any of what user LetTheRightLensIn said. If you want those effects, get a circular polarizer
******************************************************************************

 

[Luds34]

I agree, no cheap filters. I recently was looking at some night shots someone took in Turkey and I could not believe how much flare was in the shots (street lights, etc) and then it occurred to me that they had a cheap filter attached.

I've been a big fan of Marumi. I have a couple of their CPLs and a number of their "protect" filters (including a 95mm for the Tamron 150-600).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

to block out glare (look up Brewster's angle), this can make, for instance, leaves/fall foliage look more rich

to make the sky a deeper blue and make clouds pop out more

to cut through reflections and see through water and glass without as much surface reflection

the first and last above you can't make up for in post-processing and the second would be tricky and cause some damage to image quality and you still couldn't really quite match it anyway

Are you sure you're not referring to CLP and not UV filters? I've not heard of UV filters making the sky bluer and I've tested my lenses with and without the UV filter to confirm the manufacturers' claims, and cannot detect a difference?

oops haha, I was just reading the posting about polarizers and then missed that the talk switched back to UV!

anyway, never mind, move along, move along

 

[ejenner]

You'll have to do something truly unheard of to pry my B&W filters off of my lenses.

This. Been there, done that, even if something really is as good and cheaper, I'm not wasting any more money trying to find out to save what is small amounts relative to my camera gear.

Probably why B&H can charge a premium, because there are plenty of people like me who know they are paying more than they maybe 'need' do, but also know they can buy B&H and not have to worry about their filters.

 

[Zv]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

I will venture a guess and it is a bit of a stretch, especially nowadays but here goes - for those who might still use their current lenses on both digital and older film bodies. There is still a niche market with film these days so it would make sense to have just one filter that can be used interchangeably rather than have to go out an buy a separate one for your film gear. They probably want to be safe and cover all bases rather than have a bunch of film shooters knocking on their door complaining.

But then they go and make a "protector" filter along side it to make it more confusing! It's like they want you to buy two filters per lens!

Filter makers need to decide what their priority is already. The UV filter just seems like an unnecessary thing that costs more to make (I presume) and very few people need. Kind of like they're just shoving it down our throats. Why not make the UV a special order item or something like that?

 

[dufflover]

If the Gorilla Glass part is making up some of the selling points I wonder how it would compare to the other marketed "tough" filters, like Hoya HD and the B+W equivalent.

 

[davidmurray]

You'll have to do something truly unheard of to pry my B&W filters off of my lenses.

Personally I tend to the view that the objective in the art of taking a photo is to tell a story visually.

That means there are times when a filter helps with that creative process, and times when one doesn't. Times when a good filter gives you the effect you want and times when a crappy filter is the best one for the desired artistic output.

Better to have the options available.

 

[LDS]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0589968182/novo-to-produce-filter-range-using-sapphire-crystal-and-gorilla-glass

I wonder if that's more a marketing spin or not. AFAIK, nor Gorilla Glass nor Sapphire Glass were made for their outstanding optical capabilites (although sapphire has a very large transmission window) - just to be sturdy and scratch resistant for the new wave of "glass devices".
It is true a filter is just a plain glass and not a "lens" - but they're still in your light path.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0589968182/novo-to-produce-filter-range-using-sapphire-crystal-and-gorilla-glass

I wonder if that's more a marketing spin or not. AFAIK, nor Gorilla Glass nor Sapphire Glass were made for their outstanding optical capabilites (although sapphire has a very large transmission window) - just to be sturdy and scratch resistant for the new wave of "glass devices".
It is true a filter is just a plain glass and not a "lens" - but they're still in your light path.

This is a fair question. Hopefully somebody (Lenstip?) will test their optical qualities against the big brands.

 

[Loswr]

I too am confused about why we'd need UV filters.

I will venture a guess and it is a bit of a stretch, especially nowadays but here goes - for those who might still use their current lenses on both digital and older film bodies. There is still a niche market with film these days so it would make sense to have just one filter that can be used interchangeably rather than have to go out an buy a separate one for your film gear. They probably want to be safe and cover all bases rather than have a bunch of film shooters knocking on their door complaining.

But then they go and make a "protector" filter along side it to make it more confusing! It's like they want you to buy two filters per lens!

Filter makers need to decide what their priority is already. The UV filter just seems like an unnecessary thing that costs more to make (I presume) and very few people need. Kind of like they're just shoving it down our throats. Why not make the UV a special order item or something like that?

Used on a dSLR, there is no difference between a UV filter and a clear 'protect' filter. Almost every time I have gone to purchase one (there has been only one exception) the UV option has been cheaper than the clear option, so with that one exception I have always bought the UV filter.

 

[RLPhoto]

I've been using the same B+W UV filters now for about 5 years. They've been dirty, wet, covered in sand and dirt, and I wiped them with my t-shirt, and generally abused. It has some wear but nothing yet for me to consider replacing them.

 

[Joe M]

You'll have to do something truly unheard of to pry my B&W filters off of my lenses.

Personally I tend to the view that the objective in the art of taking a photo is to tell a story visually.

That means there are times when a filter helps with that creative process, and times when one doesn't. Times when a good filter gives you the effect you want and times when a crappy filter is the best one for the desired artistic output.

Better to have the options available.

I should have been clear (no pun intended) that I only use "protective" filters. As such, I need them to allow as much light through as possible while introducing no colour, no distortion, and keeping dirt and water off of my lens. It's been done to death but my take is I'd rather wipe a filter and replace it if it gets damaged than the lens. So for me, a sub-par filter is of no use.

That said, I suppose a filter that causes horrible reflections and the like could give some sort of artistic effect. Keep in mind though, it would seem that the Novo filters ought to be anything but poor performers.

 

[Local Hero]

Yes, there is a difference between a UV and a clear filter.

You can even get different types of UV filters UV A, UV B etc.

However the difference is so slight, I defy anyone to tell the difference between a clear filter, UV, Skylight etc.

You guys who want less light lost through POLs tried Hoya HD filters with only 1 stop loss?

They are great.

Supposedly use efficient pola films that were designed for use in modern LCD monitors.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, there is a difference between a UV and a clear filter.
You can even get different types of UV filters UV A, UV B etc.

Of course there's a difference in the filters. However, that difference is irrelevant if the capture medium is insensitive to it. My spectrophotometer can tell UV from clear. Film is sensitive to UV. dSLR sensors are not, so clear and UV are identical for that use. I should qualify that by saying it applies to good quality filters. For consumer filters the cutoffs aren't sharp but are more of a ramp over a ~25-75nm range (compared to 2-3nm for some I use in scientific applications). Cheaper UV filters with wide ramps will also block some of the deep blue light (although that's where a dSLR sensor is least sensitive). There's also an aspect of manufacturer choice that goes into where to set that roll-off, which is why LensTip scored the Tiffen UV filter higher than the B+W - the Tiffen blocks more UV (at the expense of deep blue), but is worse on other metrics (flare, etc.), so the B+W is better for dSLR use.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Any guess as to what sapphire glass is? High alumina content? Probably just a marketing ploy.

John

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Any guess as to what sapphire glass is? High alumina content? Probably just a marketing ploy.

Sapphire glass is not glass at all, it's synthetic sapphire which is aluminium oxide so chemically very different.

Is it a marketing ploy? I guess at this point we don't know if it offers any real advantage, time and the more rigorous reviews will tell.

 

[JoeKerslake]

May have to hunt these down at the photography show tomorrow, I'm after a new polariser too.

 

[anthonyd]

Any guess as to what sapphire glass is? High alumina content? Probably just a marketing ploy.

John

Sapphire is pure alumina. In a sense it is just a marketing ploy, because just by using (synthetic) sapphire instead of (silica) glass won't give you a screen that's significantly more resistant to shattering due to impact (i.e., drop) and this seems to be a greater concern for more people than scratching. In terms of scratch resistance though sapphire is bad ass. It has a Mohs hardness of 9. This put it on the same level of hardness as the toughest carbides and nitrides that we use for coating drill bits and just one notch below diamond. In other words, unless you carry diamonds or drill bits in your pocket, you are not going to scratch Sapphire no matter what else you carry.

 

[AvTvM]

Thanks! I am much more concerned about getting scratches in my filters than breaking them. Provided sapphire has no other "unwanted" properties (optically) with regards to use in filters, I welcome them and may buy them in the future.

Sapphire is pure alumina. In a sense it is just a marketing ploy, because just by using (synthetic) sapphire instead of (silica) glass won't give you a screen that's significantly more resistant to shattering due to impact (i.e., drop) and this seems to be a greater concern for more people than scratching. In terms of scratch resistance though sapphire is bad ass. It has a Mohs hardness of 9. This put it on the same level of hardness as the toughest carbides and nitrides that we use for coating drill bits and just one notch below diamond. In other words, unless you carry diamonds or drill bits in your pocket, you are not going to scratch Sapphire no matter what else you carry.