Direct Comparison between Hoya R72 and Cokin 007

Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
731
Location
Montreal area, Canada
This is two shots taken in the same settings same PP with the D2H, one with the Hoya, one with the cokin IR filters ... Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens was fitted.

They are fairly close once processed IMO, the Hoya costs almost 10 times as much ... Doesn't flare so much though ...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


What do you think
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
5,963
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Yves, I prefer the Hoya, but both of these images are good. The choice, I guess, depends on what you want to do and how much post processing you might want to do. The blue with the conkin is a little distracting, particularly in the water.

Great demo. Thanks,

Virginia
aka beaucamera
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
731
Location
Montreal area, Canada
beaucamera said:
Yves, I prefer the Hoya, but both of these images are good. The choice, I guess, depends on what you want to do and how much post processing you might want to do. The blue with the conkin is a little distracting, particularly in the water.

Great demo. Thanks,

Virginia
aka beaucamera
My problem is I like them both but I started loving the Cokin even more when I found out it was this much cheaper ...
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,777
Location
IL
Yves:

When I first saw this posted on DPR I was instantly drawn to the warmer colors of the Hoya but with the Cokin, I noticed more details in the leaves of the tree on the left. The highlights were not blown. I assume that one can color balance in PS to get the warmer color of the Hoya, though.

I've got the Hoya R72 for my 18-70DX and have had nothing but horrendous results with it and haven't taken it out for a few months. However, I will be going to MN next week where there is water, trees AND hopefully some white puffy clouds with which to try again.

Thanks for posting these. I was thinking that if I managed to get the hang of IR, I would spring for a 77mm filter for the 17-55DX. Does the Cokin come in a size 77 filter? I looked at B & H and couldn't find it.

Lisa
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
731
Location
Montreal area, Canada
Lisa said:
Yves:

When I first saw this posted on DPR I was instantly drawn to the warmer colors of the Hoya but with the Cokin, I noticed more details in the leaves of the tree on the left. The highlights were not blown. I assume that one can color balance in PS to get the warmer color of the Hoya, though.

I've got the Hoya R72 for my 18-70DX and have had nothing but horrendous results with it and haven't taken it out for a few months. However, I will be going to MN next week where there is water, trees AND hopefully some white puffy clouds with which to try again.

Thanks for posting these. I was thinking that if I managed to get the hang of IR, I would spring for a 77mm filter for the 17-55DX. Does the Cokin come in a size 77 filter? I looked at B & H and couldn't find it.

Lisa

Hi Lisa, the Cokin is part of the P series filter, it attaches to the P filter holder.

Model of filter is P007. You will easily find a 77 rign and a P holder and they will fit the 77mm of the 17-55.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
978
Location
Viera Fl
I like the cokin better...Feels more like you are right there in the pic. Better detail.
Just like the color better.
 
N

nfoto

Guest
Technically speaking, IR is devoid of colours, so talking about the colour balance of a filter in IR is a little off topic as it were. Rest assured you can tweak the "colours" any way you want, they are not for real.

I'm not too keen on the "89B" class of filters myself, because I think the IR rendition is not strong enough. The deep IR filters (type "87" or even stronger) makes IR much more ethereal and potentially more interesting. Getting a good exposure is easier with these filters since the danger of blowing a single channel (typically, red) is reduced to a minimum.

I would also challenge people to shoot IR under other conditions than bright sunshine. More visually satisfying pictures are then likely to result.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
731
Location
Montreal area, Canada
nfoto said:
Technically speaking, IR is devoid of colours, so talking about the colour balance of a filter in IR is a little off topic as it were. Rest assured you can tweak the "colours" any way you want, they are not for real.



I'm not too keen on the "89B" class of filters myself, because I think the IR rendition is not strong enough. The deep IR filters (type "87" or even stronger) makes IR much more ethereal and potentially more interesting. Getting a good exposure is easier with these filters since the danger of blowing a single channel (typically, red) is reduced to a minimum.


I would also challenge people to shoot IR under other conditions than bright sunshine. More visually satisfying pictures are then likely to result.
IR is an effect here and the rendition is rather deep red over colorless.

A question of preference. This was just a comparison to see how the two filters would react under the very same conditions. Just doing so is wrong in reality because they should be approached differently anyways.

I have done so in pretty much all different type of light including nightshots where IR is even more erratic.

I showed daylights shots as a preference once again.


Thx for your thoughts and for looking.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom