iainwilliams 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Hi Recently I updated my underwater housing and wide angle dome. To use my Canon 16-35 underwater requires a +2 diopter which is quite normal when shooting wide angle underwater. Does anyone know whether the hoya brand is just as good, or worse in quality than the B&W Schneider brand +2 diopter? Thanks, Iain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdave1 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Hi Recently I updated my underwater housing and wide angle dome. To use my Canon 16-35 underwater requires a +2 diopter which is quite normal when shooting wide angle underwater. Does anyone know whether the hoya brand is just as good, or worse in quality than the B&W Schneider brand +2 diopter? Thanks, Iain Not sure how relevant this is and I don't want to malign any manufacturer but in the past I bought a $200 B&W polarizing filter. The build quality was very evident (high quality build). I then did some careful testing, shooting the same scene with the B&W and a $40 Vivitar polarizer. Under high magnification, I could not see any improvement in the B&W. They were virtually identical images. Maybe I paid for the build. I still have it although it has been dinged around over the years. It hurt to pay $200 at the time and I doubt I would today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iainwilliams 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Not sure how relevant this is and I don't want to malign any manufacturer but in the past I bought a $200 B&W polarizing filter. The build quality was very evident (high quality build). I then did some careful testing, shooting the same scene with the B&W and a $40 Vivitar polarizer. Under high magnification, I could not see any improvement in the B&W. They were virtually identical images. Maybe I paid for the build. I still have it although it has been dinged around over the years. It hurt to pay $200 at the time and I doubt I would today. Hi Dave My thoughts exactly. The build of B&W is outstanding as I'm sure the optics is too. But, how much better are the actual optics to a less expensive Hoya - who knows. The diopter will be on the lens only for U/W use so the build probably isn't that important. Thanks again, Iain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ryan 49 Posted June 18, 2010 Is this 16-35II? If so, I'm not confident that a diopter will actually improve corner sharpness based on limited in water testing we've done. I'd buy it somewhere with a good return policy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iainwilliams 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Is this 16-35II? If so, I'm not confident that a diopter will actually improve corner sharpness based on limited in water testing we've done. I'd buy it somewhere with a good return policy. Hi Ryan Yes it is the Canon 16-35 f2.8 TYPE 2 lens. What would you suggest? Thanks, Iain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdpriest 115 Posted June 18, 2010 I think that Canon close-up lenses are duplets, and optically superior to single-element diopters. That said, B+W are much better made than Hoya: I've broken Hoya filters, but never a B+W one. B+W are typically mounted in a brass ring, Hoya in aluminium. B+W specialise in optical glass, and all of their filters are like the expensive Hoya variants. BMW v Toyota? Tim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deep6 7 Posted June 18, 2010 I think that Canon close-up lenses are duplets, and optically superior to single-element diopters. That said, B+W are much better made than Hoya: I've broken Hoya filters, but never a B+W one. B+W are typically mounted in a brass ring, Hoya in aluminium. B+W specialise in optical glass, and all of their filters are like the expensive Hoya variants. BMW v Toyota? Tim Lens and/or sensor may be a limiting factor when trying to compare quality filters. The B+W +4 diopter on the Nikkor 12-24 works nicely and it is BRASS as Tim said. For topside with the same lens, I use the Hoya S-MHC thin polarizer. I consider both to be good for the specific application. Bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted June 18, 2010 I second what Ryan said. I use this lens - without - a closeup lens and am reasonably happy with it. Also see the article/comparison written by Stephen Frink. He compares the 17-40L, 16-35I and II in depth testing. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stewsmith 14 Posted June 18, 2010 I second what Ryan said. I use this lens - without - a closeup lens and am reasonably happy with it. Also see the article/comparison written by Stephen Frink. He compares the 17-40L, 16-35I and II in depth testing. Cheers James Any chance of a link to that please James as I am concidering purchasing the 16-35 type2 but already have the 17-40L. My money might be best spent on a 15mm. Cheers Stew Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Williams 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Is this the one? http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/stephen-fri...non-16-35mm-ii/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted June 18, 2010 That's it, thanks Steve. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iainwilliams 0 Posted June 18, 2010 Thanks for your replies. I read the article in question, however, SF does not go into any analysis of whether edge sharpness is improved when using a +2 diopter with the Canon 16-35 type 2 lens, From what some of you are saying, your results indicate that a diopter is not really required when using this lens underwater with a Subal 8 inch dome port. Thanks, Iain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
