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.
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.
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
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!
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 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.
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 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:
Personally, I only use protective filters in adverse environmental conditions, but I won't say that's the right choice for everyone.
- 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
- The Multicoating and optical cement Minolta used in that lens already blocks a fair amount of UV.
- 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.
- The shot below includes a UV filter, a skylight filter, and an A2/81, as a quick and dirty comparison of color casts.
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?Happened to me
View attachment 307134Happened to me
Many modern lenses do not transmit UV very well
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.
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?
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
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.
"It depends"[...] My question should I buy Uv filters to protect my lenses? What are the Pros and cons? Does it affect quality? Any recommendations?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?