• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Russian / Chinese Filter equivalents

5 replies to this topic

#1 Timber

    Member

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Location: London

Posted 02 July 2019 - 09:20

I just found a PDF file that shows the different filter equivalents from Russia and China. Obviously the quality will be nowhere near the Schott / Hoya quality but if you just want to experiment with certain filters but don't want to break the bank you can try to get one of the alternatives from different manufacturers.

http://b275.nt365.net/pic/cpbg.pdf or if it does not work I've a copy in my DropBox https://www.dropbox.com/s/i08e0xguys0mbsc/cpbg.pdf

Hope it helps.

#2 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 7,184 posts
  • Location: USA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 18:13

I have no experience with Russian filters. But the current problem with the Chinese filter glass is that there are so many different manufacturers of it and they do not all seem to adhere to the same quality standards. Dual-bandpass glass used for UV-pass after blocking the IR should never leak visible light other than a tiny bit of violet on the UV side. We've had members notice this vis leak in ZWB filters. And also for a given thickness some ZWB glass seems to have lower UV transmission than Schott/Hoya of the same type. Strange, that one.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#3 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 7,184 posts
  • Location: USA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 18:22

Here is an excerpt from the table of the filters we use most.

Schott :: Hoya :: Russia :: China1 :: China2
UG11 :: U-340 :: YΦC2 :: ZWB1 :: UA1
UG1 :: U-360 :: YΦC3 :: ZWB2 :: UA2
UG5 :: U-330 :: YΦC1 :: ZWB3 :: UA3
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#4 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members(+)
  • 659 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:18

Beside the problem with varying material properties due to multiple producers the one important thing is that there is NO alternative to a S8612, for attenuating IR and at the same time have a good transmission in UV-A.

A second potential problem with cheap filters is the risk of inferior grinding and polishing.
I have seen scratches, striations and dimples when testing cheap filters.
It is difficult to know how much they affect the quality of the final images.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#5 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members(+)
  • 885 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 July 2019 - 06:22

Ulf,
This test was one of my favorite to show how important removing small blemishes on a lens is:
http://kurtmunger.co...rticleid35.html

The A900 was a 24Mpixel camera in 135 format. So I am not sure if the same would apply to a better M43rds camera like the Olympus.


#6 Timber

    Member

  • Members
  • 205 posts
  • Location: London

Posted 03 July 2019 - 08:00

View PostAndrea B., on 02 July 2019 - 18:13, said:

I have no experience with Russian filters. But the current problem with the Chinese filter glass is that there are so many different manufacturers of it and they do not all seem to adhere to the same quality standards. Dual-bandpass glass used for UV-pass after blocking the IR should never leak visible light other than a tiny bit of violet on the UV side. We've had members notice this vis leak in ZWB filters. And also for a given thickness some ZWB glass seems to have lower UV transmission than Schott/Hoya of the same type. Strange, that one.
Exactly. I would not recommend anyone to choose these Chinese filters over the Schott / Hoya ones, but if someone is on a budget then they could provide some cheap alternatives. For example I am a bit interested in bug-vision but not enough to buy a Schott filter for it, as my budget is seriously limited. Would I get a cheap Chinese to try my wings? Sure.
Also the PDF can help in the various IR filters as well. I have a russian OC-12 which is O550 equivalent. I paid £8 for a 77mm filter and it does a perfect job, and the build quality? Like a tank! :)