UV Filter or no UV filter?

[Sirius Glass]

There should be no image issues using a UV filter, but I only used them w/ rangefinder cameras. Too many pictures were taken w/ the lens cap on. All I shoot now is B&W film in SLRs, and nearly always w/ a Y filter and a hood. I suppose that helps w/ any UV issues. Any filter is a possible source of flare, so a hood is a must IMO.

I put yellow gaffers tape on the edges of the lens caps so that when I look through the viewfinder, if I see the yellow, it reminds me to remove the lens cap.

 

[BMbikerider]

My experience is the UV filter breaks and scratches the lens. I use the lens hood and keep lens cap on when not taking a photo. Lens cap is best protection.


Kent in SD

I have never, in over 58 years broken a filter of any type when fitted on the lens. I have however had to discard filters that became scratched after several years use, but the front element underneath was like new.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes I can imagine friendships ended over this.


Yep that lens isn't worth much, I do own other lenses too.


I'm probably that guy


This is interesting too because the hood probably will save the lens if it falls down.


If I would buy a skyfilter can you guys recommend some good ones? thanks of all the answers!

The UV filter doesn't protect the lens from impact or fall but it does protect it from dust and dirt and fingerprints; well worth it to me.

 

[xkaes]

That total satisfactionI get when I SUPER Violently WIPE, with any given shirt I’m wearing, the front element of my super expensive lenses.

I think I've seen some of your former lenses at GOODWILL.

 

[xkaes]

I have never, in over 58 years broken a filter of any type when fitted on the lens. I have however had to discard filters that became scratched after several years use, but the front element underneath was like new.

You haven't lived until you smash a lens into a rock -- or a rock smashes into your lens -- and your blood drains to your shoes. Then you examine the damage and realize, "The only thing broken is the UV filter!".

That's happened to me TWICE. The first time convinced me to always put a UV filter on the lens. There are a few times when I remove it -- briefly -- for example, when I am using multiple filters or want to avoid vignetting on wide lenses, etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The UV filter doesn't protect the lens from impact or fall but it does protect it from dust and dirt and fingerprints; well worth it to me.

I have had it bang rocks and bend the rim of the filter instead of the rim of the lens.

 

[NB23]

Happened to me

 

[MattKing]

View attachment 307134 Happened to me

Someone knew where to punch to cause you the most pain.

 

[Snowfire]

I can't think of a photographic subject about which so much has been written about something which makes so little difference. So I'll just make 4 quick points:

1. That SRT-101 and lens are lovely. But I wouldn't worry about the collector value of the lens, simply because it's so common. The camera is
2. The Multicoating and optical cement Minolta used in that lens already blocks a fair amount of UV.
3. Daylight balanced C-41 and E-6 films are mostly insensitive to UV light. Most non-chromogenic black and white film is sensitive to UV, with TMax 100 being a notable exception.
4. The shot below includes a UV filter, a skylight filter, and an A2/81, as a quick and dirty comparison of color casts.

Personally, I only use protective filters in adverse environmental conditions, but I won't say that's the right choice for everyone.

I have done UV photography with Tmax 100! It is not an exception! E-6 films are generally overcoated and you really have to force them to see any trace of UV response. A lot of C-41 films are not, however, and I have used some of them (most notably Portra emulsions) to produce UV images.

Many modern lenses do not transmit UV very well to begin with, and more recent digital models require modification to record much UV. So a lot of you out there will have little optical justification for using a UV filter.

If you care about actual UV rejection, many filters sold as "UV" are utterly worthless; some transmit below 330 nanometers, which is deeper reach than many UV-capable lenses! So make sure you get a good one. An overview of the topic may be found here.

 

[unwantedfocus]

Happened to me

How did you manage to remove the filter without scratching the lens? I can imagine while turning the ring to detach it, it will scratch the lens?

 

[BMbikerider]

View attachment 307134 Happened to me

Obviously I treat my cameras/lenses with more care than your good self!

 

[xkaes]

Many modern lenses do not transmit UV very well

They do a even lousier job of transmitting rocks, I have found out.

 

[faberryman]

At the suggestion of the camera salesman, I bought a Sky 1A filter to protect the lens on my first camera in 1973. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I never bought one for any subsequent camera or lens. YMMV.

 

[Helge]

Perform this demonstration and you will find that the filter does degrade image quality. Unscrew the filter so you can hold it in your hand in front of the lens.

Look through the lens at an illuminated light bulb in an otherwise dark room. Wiggle the filter. You will see the ghosts that degrade image quality.

You will really only need to do this in that kind of situation. Like street photography at night where your scene includes lights like neon signs or movie marquee.

But you should remove the filter when taking pictures like that and keep the filter on at times when it won’t matter.

Did you say Barnack three times before looking‽

Filters can be had used for a song. Just buy a bunch in various sizes from a sale or estate.
It’s really only snoptards that worry about filters. Just use them and worry less.

Guess what degrades image quality more: An unavoidable layer of crud, water drop marks, and micro scratches on the front element of a lens already consisting of four to twelve elements?
Or a single layer of high quality glass that you have no qualms about cleaning, that can be changed inexpensively, need be?

 

[NB23]

Just turn the camera upside down, blow the dust, and unscrew...

How did you manage to remove the filter without scratching the lens? I can imagine while turning the ring to detach it, it will scratch the lens?

 

[Nicklop]

UV or not UV... that is the filter

 

[Bill Burk]

Did you say Barnack three times before looking‽

Filters can be had used for a song. Just buy a bunch in various sizes from a sale or estate.
It’s really only snoptards that worry about filters. Just use them and worry less.

Guess what degrades image quality more: An unavoidable layer of crud, water drop marks, and micro scratches on the front element of a lens already consisting of four to twelve elements?
Or a single layer of high quality glass that you have no qualms about cleaning, that can be changed inexpensively, need be?

Did you do the test? It's significant in that scenario. At night with specular light sources one must remove the filter or accept the ghost images.

That was what I believed was the source of the upside-down Regent in this thread:

Weird exposure problem

One of the students in an Intermediate Photography course at the college where I work attempted a night photography assignment and her negatives exhibit a weird problem I have never seen before and am at a loss to explain. Throughout the roll and with different image locations, there is a faint...

www.photrio.com

 

[Helge]

Did you do the test? It's significant in that scenario. At night with specular light sources one must remove the filter or accept the ghost images.

That was what I believed was the source of the upside-down Regent in this thread:

Weird exposure problem

One of the students in an Intermediate Photography course at the college where I work attempted a night photography assignment and her negatives exhibit a weird problem I have never seen before and am at a loss to explain. Throughout the roll and with different image locations, there is a faint...

www.photrio.com

I had it happen with any kind of lens with or without filters. Especially wide lenses.
It’s very common with phone photography as you will see if you look at puzzled/complaining people on forums for that realm.

 

[benveniste]

I have done UV photography with Tmax 100! It is not an exception! E-6 films are generally overcoated and you really have to force them to see any trace of UV response. A lot of C-41 films are not, however, and I have used some of them (most notably Portra emulsions) to produce UV images.

Many modern lenses do not transmit UV very well to begin with, and more recent digital models require modification to record much UV. So a lot of you out there will have little optical justification for using a UV filter.

If you care about actual UV rejection, many filters sold as "UV" are utterly worthless; some transmit below 330 nanometers, which is deeper reach than many UV-capable lenses! So make sure you get a good one. An overview of the topic may be found here.

As per posts here from 2004, the measured sensitivity of TMax 100 to UV light is about three stops less than films like Delta 100 or FP-4. Like C-41 films, it has a UV blocking layer. TMax 400 does not have that layer.

APUG Forums - UV resistant TMax

APUG.ORG is an international on-line community, completely devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes.

web.archive.org

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is no single correct answer because there are many kinds of color film, many different shooting conditions, and quite a variety of UV and skylight filters, which not only differ in specific application but also in quality and price. There are also "colorless" filters intended only for secondary lens protection.
I carry more than one type even on the same outing. I seldom shoot 35mm film, but the same principles apply. Anyone who has worked at high altitude with color film understands the need for a UV or skylight filter if they expect truly crisp results; but there are many other valid applications.

I never use them for black and white film because nearly always I'm using some kind of contrast filter instead.

 

[Snowfire]

As per posts here from 2004, the measured sensitivity of TMax 100 to UV light is about three stops less than films like Delta 100 or FP-4. Like C-41 films, it has a UV blocking layer. TMax 400 does not have that layer.

I am having trouble understanding the context of that post. One person seems to imply that there is a blocking layer in the base(?) which would not affect emulsion sensitivity from the forward side. But if you were directing UV light through the exposed film (to make Pd/Pt prints, for example) it would definitely matter.

Here is an actual UV picture taken with Tmax 100, and for good measure, here is one taken with Portra 160VC. Neither of these emulsions acted like an overcoated film. That is not to say other films may not be faster--the response in that spectral region can be idiosyncratic and variable.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, developed T-Max 100 negatives block UV transmission, and are therefore unsuitable for most alternative process contact prints or UV enlargements.
The Kodak datasheet spectral sensitivity curve for T-Max 100 shows no data for anything shorter than 400 nm. In comparison, the Kodak datasheet spectral sensitivity curve for 400 TX shows data for wavelengths down to 300 nm.

 

[ivannavi]

[...] My question should I buy Uv filters to protect my lenses? What are the Pros and cons? Does it affect quality? Any recommendations?

"It depends"

1.Protec the lens is always a good idea.
2.But an extra layer of glass always will affect the final image.
2.1. The highest quality of your photo will be the maximum quality available with the worst piece of equipment.
2.1.1. So, if you are using a lo-fi lens you don't loose anything with an extra layer of cheep glass attached to the front of your lens (like when I put a cheep red filter with tape over the plastic lens of my Chinese Holga 120N).
2.2. But with no so lo-fi lenses the loose of quality becomes evident.
2.2.1. So, you must decide if you are willing to spend enough money on a hi quality filter like Heliopan or B+W or if you think that the value of the lens that you are using just don't justify that kind of expense of money.
3. Usually the front element of lenses get the scratches when someone try to clean it in a wrong manner. So, in order to avoid scratches the most important thing is always have a fine cleaning method.
4. In my experience an UV filter always affect a little the contrast and color.
4.1. If you are doing digital photography and you are being very seriously with the color (using a color checker before final shots and things like that) a clear glass (no color) like the B+W "Clear MCR-Nanon 007" would be a better option than the UV filter.

 

[unwantedfocus]

Would be nice if anybody can recommend good filters. I read URTH is not bad?

 

[DREW WILEY]

UV-Skylight filters can often improve the color rendition of both film and digital capture. Among the better brands are Hoya, Heliopan, B&W, and Singh-Ray.