UV filter

[Bwbuff]

I need an UV filter for the Olympus pen EE-2, is there any difference between Digital UV filter and regular UV filter (without the word digital) ? I shoot B&W film only.

Thanks.

 

[BradS]

not any difference that matters for film users.

 

[xkaes]

Do you mean there IS a difference for digital users?

 

[neilt3]

In most cases it's just marketing BS , especially with filters .
In some cases , particularly with lenses , it has improved coatings .
Typically with the anti reflective coatings on the rear lens element to deal with the highly reflective cover glass above the sensor .
This was never a problem with film cameras and was unnecessary , but some lenses are problematic in certain circumstances ( on digital) .

Just be sure to buy good quality filters .
A cheap and nasty filter is still crap , regardless of if it says "digital" on it !
I've come across some that came with used lenses that really did degrade the image .
Held against the light you could even see ripples on the glass meaning they were not even flat .

No point spending lots of money on a top quality lens to best the best image quality out if it , then stick a piece of window glass in front of it !

Good quality UV filters don't cost much , so how much can you save buying cheap?

 

[xkaes]

Multi-coated UV filters have been around for decades -- long before digital cameras were even thought of.

As you point out, filters marked "DIGITAL" can mean absolutely nothing.

You seem to be saying that "DIGITAL" MIGHT mean multi-coating on the glass -- but might not.

In short, the word "DIGITAL" on a filter is utterly worthless -- except perhaps to the seller, who is trying to sell it.

Why not just look for a filter that is marked "multi-coated"?

 

[BradS]

Do you mean there IS a difference for digital users?

No....but I really don't know and have no evidence. I've never seen data one way or the other.

However, the spectral response of film is fairly narrow and it is possible that the spectral response of the cmos sensor in some digital cameras is shall we say significantly different from film and so it is at least conceivable that a digital camera may benefit from some additional filtering (eg. UV + IR). Again, I really don't know about the digital cameras but from personal experience with B+W 010 MRC filters, film doesn't care one way or the other if the box the filter came in says 'Digital' on it or not.

Like neilt3 says above, calling a a UV filter 'digital' just sounds like marketing bullshit.

 

[Moose22]

I'm pretty sure some filters got marked "digital" because, in the early days (like 2003) I was being told that "you don't need a UV filter, that's done on the sensor" for digital.

Just conjecture, but you guys are correct. They're the same thing with marketing BS in the name.

 

[SteveInConverse]

Do you mean there IS a difference for digital users?

Supposedly there is. Something about the coatings.

 

[xkaes]

Supposedly there is. Something about the coatings.

That's as clear as glass.

 

[xkaes]

... a digital camera may benefit from some additional filtering (eg. UV + IR).

Digital cameras have an IR filter in front of the sensor. You can only use them for IR work if this built-in filter is removed -- not a simple task.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of the exact filters I have long chosen for film use are now be sold as "digital filters", with increased prices of course. In some cases, the specific kind of multi-coating can be important with respect to specific digital receptors. Certain kinds of multi-coating are actually detrimental to the best digital-capture results. Sing-Ray is a good company to look up with respect to these technical distinctions.

The secondary question of typical multi-coatings versus uber-expensive 16 layers ones is largely irrelevant if one has a decently shaded lens or is not shooting into the sun. For example, a traditional $20 HMC (Hoya multi-coated) UV filters is going to deliver almost indistinguishable results from either their, or someone else's $125 - $150 deluxe version. Even black and white colored contrast filters are now getting packaged as "digital filters", with upped pricing versus remaining stocks of seemingly the exact same filter under old regular labeling.

I'd recommend being a lot more interested in the specific level of UV or skylight filter you actually need for any specific COLOR film and shooting scenario than the above issue, unless price is no object. But in terms of BLACK AND WHITE FILM applications per se, why do you need any such UV filter to begin with, unless just for general lens protection? Even one of the weaker actual b&w contrast filters will do a better job blocking UV with respect to black white films themselves.

 

[SteveInConverse]

That's as clear as glass.

Yeah sorry, I couldnt remember the exact issue as to why digital was supposedly different.

 

[Bwbuff]

Some of the exact filters I have long chosen for film use are now be sold as "digital filters", with increased prices of course. In some cases, the specific kind of multi-coating can be important with respect to specific digital receptors. Certain kinds of multi-coating are actually detrimental to the best digital-capture results. Sing-Ray is a good company to look up with respect to these technical distinctions.

The secondary question of typical multi-coatings versus uber-expensive 16 layers ones is largely irrelevant if one has a decently shaded lens or is not shooting into the sun. For example, a traditional $20 HMC (Hoya multi-coated) UV filters is going to deliver almost indistinguishable results from either their, or someone else's $125 - $150 deluxe version. Even black and white colored contrast filters are now getting packaged as "digital filters", with upped pricing versus remaining stocks of seemingly the exact same filter under old regular labeling.

I'd recommend being a lot more interested in the specific level of UV or skylight filter you actually need for any specific COLOR film and shooting scenario than the above issue, unless price is no object. But in terms of BLACK AND WHITE FILM applications per se, why do you need any such UV filter to begin with, unless just for general lens protection? Even one of the weaker actual b&w contrast filters will do a better job blocking UV with respect to black white films themselves.

Yes, mostly for lens protection, my question started when looking at the auction site trying to buy one and all these UV (digital/regular) options come up and truly confused me, thus asking for helps here.

 

[Pieter12]

Unless I am out in the field where there are serious possibilities of the lens getting damage, I never use a UV filter. A lens cap is very effective for protecting the front element. A UV filter gathers dust and fingerprints and can degrade the image. My two cents.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Same here, though do a have variety of UV and skylight filters for their intended color film applications. I don't shoot digital but do have one of the better full-frame Nikon DLSR's for sake of copystand use, and have done careful testing with it, and can confirm, at least in its case, those pricey Singh-Ray filters do achieve more accurate hues under various lighting conditions, studio or in the field, than without a filter, and even slightly better than the Hoya HMC 1B skylight filter.

But the Singh-Ray isn't coated at all, and they claim the high performance is due to a special glass type which only they use. It's wonderful for Ektar film too. Mine is the older "KN" label, Now they call it something else, but which one, I don't know. I should probably ask them someday. But for mere hypothetical protection, I'd want something hard multi-coated, easy to clean, and highly resistant to condensation, which not all MC filters are. Some brands, like certain B&W items, tend to have relatively soft coating. And other uncoated filters, like Tiffen, collect haze and smudge quickly, so need almost routine cleaning before each use. The Singh-Ray brand seems unique with respect to being uncoated, yet behaving as if it were.

One more thing to think about.

 

[xkaes]

Unless I am out in the field where there are serious possibilities of the lens getting damage, I never use a UV filter. A lens cap is very effective for protecting the front element. A UV filter gathers dust and fingerprints and can degrade the image. My two cents.

An uncovered lens also "gathers dust and fingerprints and can degrade the image". But you can clean a filter without worrying about scratching your lens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For critical work, especially involving serious enlargement from something small like roll film, the fewer air/glass optical interfaces involved, the better. I've never personally used filters for mere protective purposes, and even my fifty years old lenses are not dirty or scratched. And I've taken em to a lot of rugged bad-weather places. A simple lens cap does the job, plus an emergency spare cap in the kit if needed.

But when I was looking for a reasonably-priced used Fuji 6X9 rangefinder, I found one with an utterly pristine primary lens because the former used had a skylight filter over that the lens the entire time. But it was so beat-up, dirty, and scratched, that I can't figure of how he every got decent pictures. His loss, my gain. Also his custom, my toss, right into the trashcan with that old filter. I probably saved a hundred bucks for that reason alone, and a high-quality replacement Uv filter is only about twenty bucks, so go figure.

 

[Pieter12]

An uncovered lens also "gathers dust and fingerprints and can degrade the image". But you can clean a filter without worrying about scratching your lens.

Of course it does, thus the lens cap. It can be quickly removed and replace and doesn’t need cleaning.

 

[JPD]

Remember when cassette tapes were sold as "for CD"? And some of them were just simple Type I tapes, like TDK D.

 

[xkaes]

Of course it does, thus the lens cap. It can be quickly removed and replace and doesn’t need cleaning.

And a UV filter won't get dirty when the lens cap is put on that either.

It makes no sense to say a filter will get dirty, but a lens won't.

 

[xkaes]

I rarely remove the HMC UV filters from my lenses. They have saved a few of my lenses over the years from serious scratches -- and I know other who have had similar experiences. The ones that had UV or 1A filters on their lenses are glad they did. The ones that didn't sold them on EBAY -- you see them all the time because it's a common occurrence.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/i-was-sold-a-minolta-28mm-f2-af-lens-and-the-front-glass-element-is-scratched-should-i-return-it-or-just-get-a-partial-refund.196898/#post-2640037

And NO, I'm not clumsy. Things can damage your gear without you even being involved.

And I've never had an HMC filter degrade my images. Not using a proper lens shade will be a bigger degrader.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I need a UV filter for the Olympus pen EE-2, is there any difference between a Digital UV filter and a regular UV filter (without the word digital) ? I shoot B&W film only.

Thanks.

No difference, just sales hype.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I keep a UV filter on all my lenses for protection except the Fisheyes which cannot take a front filter.

 

[r_a_feldman]

Of course it does, thus the lens cap. It can be quickly removed and replace and doesn’t need cleaning.

I have UV filters on most of my lenses (35mm film and digital) unless the front element is deeply recessed, like on my OM-1 50mm macro lens. The lens cap protects the lens when it is in my pack or the car trunk, but the cap comes off and goes into my back pocket when I put the camera strap over my shoulder. I have lost too many lens caps with them getting bumped off (I don’t like tethering the lens caps to the camera as they get in the way). The lenses for my 4x5 field camera don’t have filters on them, just caps, as I handle and carry them differently from the lenses for my 35mm cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

And a UV filter won't get dirty when the lens cap is put on that either.

It makes no sense to say a filter will get dirty, but a lens won't.

No, but it makes sense to say there is no need for a filter if you use a lens cap.