UV Filter Still Needed When Using Color Filter, ND or Polarizer?

[Photic Visions]

Hello all,

I've taken some baby steps with my new (to me) Fuji GW690III. I keep a B+W UV filter on it for physical lens protection and to ward off the evil UV spirits. I'd like to start experiment with color filters (yellow, orange, red) and am wondering whether I should stack the color filter on the UV filter or use the color filter alone? Do color filters, NDs, polarizers, etc. provide their own UV protection?

Thanks!

 

[removed-user-1]

If you look at the transmission charts for various filters, you'll see that most of them block UV wavelengths. For example, here's a B+W brochure, look on page 60 for the charts: https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/filters/BWHandbook.pdf

Hope this helps.

 

[Leigh B]

If you look at the transmission charts for various filters, you'll see that most of them block UV wavelengths.

MOST and ALL are not synonymous.

Plus, you can't apply one manufacturer's specs to products of another manufacturer.

- Leigh

 

[removed-user-1]

Oh, for Pete's sake. I was just trying to be helpful. Hopefully the original poster found this information useful.

MOST and ALL are not synonymous.

That is why I used the word most. If I meant all, I would type all.

Plus, you can't apply one manufacturer's specs to products of another manufacturer.

That is why I used the words for example.

I've enjoyed all the help others here have given me, and I've sometimes been able to return the favor. That's all I was trying to do with my answer to this thread: help out another photographer. Sorry it didn't meet with your approval. I'll be on my way, and leave the professional answer-giving to experts like you.

 

[Photic Visions]

rthomas, thank you for not only providing an answer, but also backing it up with technical reference information. My UV and color filters happen to be from B+W. Although their filter handbook is apparently well out of date, I can infer a lot of useful information (while assuming that although their coating technology has changed, hopefully their spectral response has remained constant, as evidenced by their continued use of the numbering system). In particular, I can see that my color filters already apparently block wavelengths in the UV band, so clearly there's no need to stack them with the UV filter.

The fact that B+W don't include a response graph for their polarizing filters would suggest that these filters do not filter light at any specific wavelengths (which makes sense, since polarizers are meant to filter out light by polarity rather than spectrum), so unless I learn otherwise I conclude that it would be best to stack the polarizer with the UV.

Their ND filter range apparently offers UV roll-off in line with that of the UV filter, with the effect commensurate with the filter's strength. This suggests that using 2+ stops of B+W's ND effectively obviates the need for the UV filter. This is particularly useful when used in conjunction with the polarizer, as this frees me from the worry of triple-stacking filters and thus risking image degradation.

Thanks for following along as I reason through my little analysis. I'm sure this is old hat to many (if not most) of you. If I've misunderstood anything in the filter handbook, please correct me so that other newbies can learn from your collective wisdom!

If anyone knows of links to similar reference information for Hoya, Tiffen, Formatt, Singh-Ray and other filter manufacturers, please contribute them here! Might as well create the "mother of all filter stacking" threads.

 

[Alan Gales]

When I use to shoot 35mm I'd stack filters. I had circular filters plus the Cokin filter system. I used UV filters for protection and usually left them on when adding a polarizer. When stacking filters I would take the UV filter off to avoid vignetting.

 

[etn]

I am generally too lazy to remove the UV filter of my lenses when adding a BW filter. There is an exception, though: with some lenses (e.g. wide angle), stacking filters can cause vignetting.

 

[Vaughn]

Mine is on the lens to protect the good glass. Comes off when I actually take a photo.

 

[etn]

Mine is on the lens to protect the good glass. Comes off when I actually take a photo.

If you take it off each time, why not simply using a lens cap? not criticizing, just asking...

 

[Skai King]

I can count the number of times I've put a UV, skylight, clear, etc. filter on a lens in 31+ years of full time professional photography, 15 years with film usage and the past 16 years with digital. It's been there to protect the front element from moisture.

I've never had an issue w/o a UV filter. In the real world, there is no need. The lenses I use deal with UV on their own, it's sorta like the labs pushing lacquer spray to 'protect' the RA prints.

The only time I stack filters is if I have a gradated ND and a straight ND. In such instances, I believe see a loss of clarity but there are no other options. Stacking a yellow filter on top of a UV is excessive and a fix to a non-existent issue in my not so humble opinion.

 

[Leigh B]

The lenses I use deal with UV on their own

How?

Optical glass is transparent in the ultraviolet range.

Which lenses (make and model) do you own that are not?

- Leigh

 

[Skai King]

Leigh, what problem is a UV filter addressing?

 

[Leigh B]

Leigh, what problem is a UV filter addressing?

Regular film is sensitive to ultraviolet light, and photographic lenses are transparent to UV.
But the human eye does not see in that portion of the spectrum.

So the image on the film of subjects shot outdoors or with unfiltered strobes may differ significantly from what you see.

- Leigh

 

[Skai King]

Has UV this caused a problem for you?

I have seen less than high quailty 'white' material come out bluish in a photograph which was caused by the excessive use of whiteners to make it appear white to the eye. Other photographers, and Kodak in their printed handout, state that filtration at the camera does not correct this problem.

Granted, I am not performing scientific tests, rather I am or have been just a working portrait, wedding, landscape, product photographer and routinely a snap shooter.

 

[Leigh B]

Has UV this caused a problem for you?

I can't honestly say.

I started using UV filters about 65 years ago (1952).
My memory of problems at that time is imprecise.

- Leigh

 

[Vaughn]

If you take it off each time, why not simply using a lens cap? not criticizing, just asking...

Good question! I can compose and focus with the UV filter on to protect the lens in wet/windy/dusty conditions, then take it off right before the exposure. It also protects the lens filter threads better than just a plastic lenscap.

It also protects the lens from my fumbling fingers as, while under the darkcloth, I reach around to adust the lens aperature -- never had this problem when I used just one lens, but now I occasionally touch the glass as I try to find the aperature lever on different shutter sizes and types.

Occasionally (but not for a long time) I click the shutter and see that ugly diry filter still on the lens!

On my Rolleiflex, I have gone to a lens hood instead of a UV filter -- just have to blow dust off the lens occasionally. A lens hood is probably one of the most effective lens addition there is.

 

[Luckless]

Some optical glass is transparent to UV. Some is not. And of those that are transparent to UV they may not transmit enough, or over a wide enough range, to make a noticeable difference in many use cases.
The brightness difference between Visible+UV and Visible-UV may not not have much of an impact on the image, and so far I've considered there increase flare issues of an additional filter to outweigh the downsides of slight UV exposure with my gear.

I have some negatives kicking around from last summer where I shot a few rolls (delta 100) with different filter combinations on my Mamiya TLR 80mm lens one afternoon down on the waterfront. Bare Lens, UV Filter, Red Filter and UV at the same time, Red Filter only, etc. Overall effect of the UV filter on the final image compared to the others seemed to be not worth my effort. The UV filter vs bare lens had a bit of contrast improvement, but any effect the UV filter had when paired with any of my coloured filters seemed negligible.

The UV filter I had on hand at the time however was a rather cheap one and possibly of questionable value. I've honestly been on the fence about spending the money to experiment with a better filter to see if it makes any kind of a difference.

Sadly digging up reliable specifications on different lenses and filters for details on UV transmission profiles seems terribly hit and miss if you're trying to quickly google things. (The other 'fun' thing about UV transmission is that it can vary on manufacture. I would need to go digging again to find it, but I do remember something about one type of glass was horribly random for UV, swinging from blocking nearly all to nearly nothing, depending on factors like how quickly the glass was cooled when being made. This made for some 'fun' results during some science experiments back in the day when UV was still not well known.)


But if you are planning to begin experimenting with additional filters, then you may want to go ahead and spend the bit of extra film doing your own comparison shots. I feel that one of the best things I've done to help get an understanding of the different filters impacts on an image has been taking my own shots with various combinations of a scene I've been looking at with my own eyes. I went in with an idea of what was probably going to happen, but the reinforcement of doing it for myself made a nice confidence boost.
Just remember to keep good notes on which filters you're using in which frame I need to dig up my test photos from last summer and put them together as an article at some point, but I might invest in the project with a few more filters and just redo all the shots.

 

[BMbikerider]

I always leave the filter on as a physical barrier agains dust, finger marks and other detritus that seems to be attracted the fine optical glass. If you have to clean a lens which does happen, scratch a lens, that also happens, it is cheaper to replace a filter than get the lens re-polished/coated or replace the complete lens. I speak with over half a century of experience and leaving a filter on has had no detrimental effect I can detect. It doesn't have to be a UV, it can quite easily be a coloured filter if you are using B&W film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

If you take it off each time, why not simply using a lens cap? not criticizing, just asking...

Hmmm, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe he likes to pre-visualize a scene and then take it off just before he shoots?

 

[ac12]

I used a skylight filter with my film cameras rather than a UV filter. Many decades later, I do not remember the reason for choosing the skylight over a UV filter.

I do not remember if I removed the skylight filter when I put on the colored black and white filters, or not. I may not have removed the skylight filter, simply to avoid trying to juggle filters. Today, removing the skylight/UV filter will depend on the environment where I am shooting. If I feel safe, I will remove the skylight/UV filter, if not it will stay on.

I think for the polarizer, I probably removed the skylight filter, because the polarizing filter was at least 2x thicker than a standard filter.

The only lens where I might have had a vignetting problem was the 24mm on the Nikon, so I removed the skylight filter when I put on the Polarizer. I do not remember if I shot B&W with filters with the 24.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Transmission for newer types of higher index, lower dispersion glass tend to roll off at the transition from VIS to UV. By newer types I mean the lanthanides developed in the 50s and glasstypes advertised as "ED" glass. Traditional crown and flint tend to pass UV.

Since lanthanides have been used since the 1950s in pretty much every fast camera lens since then, the UV content will be blocked to some extent. Even better blocking will likely occur in newer lenses (90s or younger) as even newer glasstypes with less UV transmission were introduced.

This is why folks don't see a difference in photos taken with and without a haze filter in fast lenses. However you won't really know for sure without a spectral transmission measurement. Personally, I put a filter on my lenses because I don't want to expose the front lens coatings to the environment.

Now I'm curious...maybe I'll take my Nikon 50 f/1.4 lens into work and measure it on the spectrophotometer.

 

[Jim Jones]

UV filters certainly do provide protection for the lens, but I've rarely used them for protection in 65 years of using Leica, Nikon, and other good equipment. I've also replaced a 50mm Summicron and a classic 203mm f/7.7 Ektar due to heavy-handed cleaning in the field. That's a negligible fraction of film cost. The best protection is a metal screw-in lens cap. A proper lens hood is also good. Stacking filters compounds any problems with them. The old uncoated filters definitely could cause ghost images of bright lights within the image area. Perhaps today's multicoated filters succeed in avoiding this. It would be a worthy subject for scientific testing.