Fuji Fuji Protector Filters

vincent

New Member
Question for anyone who owns a Fuji protector filter for their lens. I have the PRF-52 for my 35mm f1.4 lens and the PRF-62 for my 23mm f1.4. I noticed the light reflecting off the front of the filter glass is different between the two filters even though they should have the same coating. The light reflecting off the front of the PRF-52 is PURPLE while the light reflecting off the PRF-62 is BLUE. The attached photo illustrates this using an LED strip as the light source. (The filters are mounted to the lenses in the photo, so ignore the extra reflections from the lens elements.)

Can owners of Fuji filters tell me if they see the same colors reflected off their filters?

Both filters use Fuji's Super Electron Beam Coating (EBC), so I was expecting the same color in light reflection.

I wonder if it's possible one filter is fake. However, all the packaging looks legitimate, and I have yet to notice any striking differences in optical performance.

Thanks for any input from you folks.

fuji_filter.png
 
B

Blythe

Guest
Don't use filters except for ND grads and polarisers. Why spend £500+ on a lens and put a £10 (or even £80) piece of plastic in front of it? If you want protection, use a lens hood. I have shot professionally in many circumstances including deserts, with their associated windblown sand issues, and I still wouldn't compromise the lens by using a filter that wasn't necessary for getting the exposure of the shot correct. If you don't think it makes a difference, shoot a test chart, believe me, it does.
 
Don't use filters except for ND grads and polarisers. Why spend £500+ on a lens and put a £10 (or even £80) piece of plastic in front of it? If you want protection, use a lens hood. I have shot professionally in many circumstances including deserts, with their associated windblown sand issues, and I still wouldn't compromise the lens by using a filter that wasn't necessary for getting the exposure of the shot correct. If you don't think it makes a difference, shoot a test chart, believe me, it does.

To use protective filters or not is a ongoing debate, including lens hoods. Do they provide protection to your lens? Yes and no; whatever is on the end of the lens when it hits will take the majority of the impact, depending on how the setup falls. I've broken a filter and/or hood or two over 32 years of shooting; not from being klutzy but accidents do happen when it comes to sports and wildlife work. Lens hood and protective filters have saved my day; as long as I can continue and complete my assignment, that's all that matters to me. Like anything in photography; it's personal preference and needs. Once I took a golfball to the lens while shooting at a LPGA tour; freak accident. The filter (CP) saved the front element of my Nikon 300mm f4; the hood did nothing obviously ;). I carry a spare PF/CP in my bag all the time after that day.
 
B

Blythe

Guest
Always a personal choice. My choice is to have insurance, but I can understand why others choose to have a filter if that's what gives them confidence. I did a lot of lens testing for reviews and that led me to test filters. Personally, I find from my testing, it degraded the images but then most people don't pixel peep, just photographers do that.
 

Covey22

Hall of Famer
Sold plenty of work, even did a wedding recently (which reminded me why I haven't done them in a while). Nary a pixel peep.

Filters are one of those divisive issues - like Mac versus PC.

I've used some quality protective NCs. Great for kids with sticky fingers which always happens on a group shot - and accidental tourists (emphasis on the leading term) who flail about wildly in crowds (don't ask, I always end up next to one of these folk). NC filters saved me on several of those occasions, because they tend to land squarely on the front element, bypassing that lovely hood. Like many things in life, protection works best in layers. If one fails, the other is around. No worries on the Image Quality - there wasn't an impact printing up 11x14.
 
B

Blythe

Guest
Ok, let me rephrase that. SOME photographers pixel peep. Non-photographers never pixel peep unless they are digital imaging experts etc etc etc.

I only pixel peep when sharpening because I want to see it 100% or retouching dandruff etc from wedding photos (yes, I also get paid to take photos). I check every photo I submit to print at 100%, always have. But its my choice, I don't say every one has to and I know not everyone does. I am retentive whatever....

Back to filters. I have noticed a difference in printing even below A3 approximate size, but again, that is me. Perhaps it is years as an apprentice commercial photographer in a darkroom with a lupe that got me into the habit of this close examination? Who knows. Who cares? It is my way of working and as a result I can see the minor (and its very minor) degrading of images where a filter has been used and so I personally choose not to.

I also have both MACS and PCs and don't really care which if it gets the job done. I also don't care which brand of toothpaste, tea, or petrol I use (fussiest about tea as it happens). To me, all these things, cameras, lenses, computers, are tools. If a better tool comes along then I may way change to use it. But I don't like blunting perfectly good tools, so I chose not to use filters.
 
Ok, let me rephrase that. SOME photographers pixel peep. Non-photographers never pixel peep unless they are digital imaging experts etc etc etc.

I only pixel peep when sharpening because I want to see it 100% or retouching dandruff etc from wedding photos (yes, I also get paid to take photos). I check every photo I submit to print at 100%, always have. But its my choice, I don't say every one has to and I know not everyone does. I am retentive whatever....

Back to filters. I have noticed a difference in printing even below A3 approximate size, but again, that is me. Perhaps it is years as an apprentice commercial photographer in a darkroom with a lupe that got me into the habit of this close examination? Who knows. Who cares? It is my way of working and as a result I can see the minor (and its very minor) degrading of images where a filter has been used and so I personally choose not to.

I also have both MACS and PCs and don't really care which if it gets the job done. I also don't care which brand of toothpaste, tea, or petrol I use (fussiest about tea as it happens). To me, all these things, cameras, lenses, computers, are tools. If a better tool comes along then I may way change to use it. But I don't like blunting perfectly good tools, so I chose not to use filters.

Oh I perfectly understand, Blythe. Indeed a force of habit from darkroom days and loupes; I specialized in color management processing back in the days of film.
 
Top