Does this CPL filter look like a fake?

[Equilibrium8]

Hi

I ordered a CPL filter online. I wanted a cheap one to experiment with, but still relatively decent, so I went with a cheap Kenko.

I am wondering if this is a fake. This particular model does not appear on the global website, but I know many brands have different products for the Asian market. On the back the URL is kenko-tokina.co.jp, which seems like it does not exist anymore, but it has Alexa rankings so it might have been an old Kenko site. The sticker on front has the URL shanghai-kenko.com, which looks like a distributor not an official site.

What made me wonder is the back of the case (picture 3) which has the description for a UV filter printed on it, even though the heading and barcode label is for a CPL filter. It is a single print. I doubt a major company would make a mistake like that (or if it's even possible in the printing process)

[Dave Humphries]

Does look a bit suspicious, doens't it

I've never bought Kenko, so cannot comment further.

Just going through getting a refund for a battery myself at the moment.

Canon (UK) were very helpful to me, perhaps Kenko would be for you?
Try contacting the proper webiste.
http://www.kenkoglobal.com/

Good luck,

[arith]

I only ever had one cpl and hardly ever used it so sold it. It was however; blue.

[Glenn NK]

Seems to have suspicion written all over it. The text on the third image suggests "amateur" to me.

CPLs (at least the three I have) are not blue. But they're made in Germany, and maybe the Germans don't like blue (nah, that' nonsense, my German car is blue).

Glenn

[Manfred M]

I'd be quite suspicious. The description on the packaging is for a UV filter not a polarizer. Polarizers are neutral gray. As well, they are two part filters. The filter thread screws onto the lens and the element rotates freely so that you can get the right of effect when you are shooting. I can't tell from the image if it does that. If it does not, it's a fake for sure.

You could always mount it on your lens and test it. Turn 90 degrees to the direction of the sun and look at the sky (can't be overcast). If the sky darkens, you have a polarizer. If your camera autofocuses and meters properly, you have a cpol.

[arith]

I'd be quite suspicious. The description on the packaging is for a UV filter not a polarizer. Polarizers are neutral gray.

I sold mine to a dealer by the way; he owned a city centre shop. So he must have been stupid because it was blue.

In fact it was this one

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/accessories/filters.htm

[Momo]

Looks to me like you've got yourself a UV filter. Does the top ring rotate independently of the bottom threaded ring? If not, then it's a UV filter or some other type of filter. It just does not look dark enough to me. As mentioned above, mount it to your lens or just hold it up to the sky and give it a spin. Make sure you are 90 degrees to the sun. (one shoulder pointing towards sun)

[Mahn England]

It should look like this:

[Dave Humphries]

I thought it looked a bit pale too.

Another test is to look at it while wearing a pair of polarising sunglasses - it should go black at one orientation.

[Photon Hacker]

I thought it looked a bit pale too.

Another test is to look at it while wearing a pair of polarising sunglasses - it should go black at one orientation.

Wouldn't that be for a linear polarizing filter?.

[Manfred M]

Wouldn't that be for a linear polarizing filter?.

Both linear and circular would have the same effect. The way you would be able to tell if it was linear versus circular is if the auto focus and auto exposure functions on your camera gave inconsistent results. A linear polarizer does not work with this technology.

[Inkanyezi]

The sunglasses test would not function with a circular polariser unless you look at it from its front and the light comes from the back of it. When it is in its normal position, the circular portion unpolarises the light that is passing through. So to test it for polarisation, you could either look directly through it at specular reflections from non-metallic surfaces and turn it around to see that it has the capacity to block the reflections, or you could turn it around, looking through it the wrong way with polariser sunglasses and turn it to see if it blocks light in one position.

I would not be surprised if it really is a Kenko filter, but it could also be a fake, although it might be a decent circular polariser anyway. You can check it for colour cast by taking a white reference with and without the filter. White balance should be the same whether the filter is on or off.

[Equilibrium8]

I'd be quite suspicious. The description on the packaging is for a UV filter not a polarizer. Polarizers are neutral gray. As well, they are two part filters. The filter thread screws onto the lens and the element rotates freely so that you can get the right of effect when you are shooting. I can't tell from the image if it does that. If it does not, it's a fake for sure.

You could always mount it on your lens and test it. Turn 90 degrees to the direction of the sun and look at the sky (can't be overcast). If the sky darkens, you have a polarizer. If your camera autofocuses and meters properly, you have a cpol.

It definitely is a CPL. I tested the rotation with a LCD screen as a background and it does go from clear to colored to complete black.
I tried testing it yesterday, but I was in a valley with little direct sunlight coming in. It did make autofocus a bit strange, but this could have been due to the light. And in this light there seemed to be very little difference when turning it, but that again may be due to the amount of sunlight hitting it.

[Andrew1]

I have Kenko PRO1D and B&W CPL's and have never notice a performance advantage from any of them. Kenko makes a few grades of filters and like other manufacturers they flog them out to whoever will buy them. Many of the deals through China or other Asian countries are legitimate businesses who have bought large quantities of the lower grades at bulk prices and can offer you a better deal than local camera stores. Your neighbourhood camera store is usually higher in price but it's not always they that are the problem. Distributors in each country add some hefty mark-ups on some gear as well. You wanted a cheap one to experiment with and you indicated it works fine.

Many of the items we see packaged from China do contain spelling mistakes and in some cases the packaging appears strange to us. Some that show up are very funny. The products are being repackaged by someone whose English is not their first or possibly even their second language. By the way, I found this exact same concern from a couple of years ago. If the filter is what they claim it was then it doesn't sound like a problem to me.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...kenko-cpl.html

[russellsnr]

Hi, I use Kenko filters on occasion, in-fact I just bought there ND400 77mm.
I do believe that they are also a cut off from Hoya, many stories on this one but the most probable is that two bothers owned Hoya had an argument so went there different ways, one started up Kenko the other kept Hoya.
Russ

[Donald]

There are stories of people ordering Hoya filters and getting Kenko ones delivered.

They do seem to be out of the same stable. I think they are joint owned but still marketing under the two labels. What I don't know is whether the filters are in fact same products with a different name on them. They (Hoya and Kenko) are almost identically, at least in the range of UV Filters.

[arith]

There are stories of people ordering Hoya filters and getting Kenko ones delivered.

They do seem to be out of the same stable. I think they are joint owned but still marketing under the two labels. What I don't know is whether the filters are in fact same products with a different name on them. They (Hoya and Kenko) are almost identically, at least in the range of UV Filters.

Don't know about that Donald:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article...d_summary.html