UV filtres and Mamiya lenses. I tried to spot the difference

[bluez]

In the 80’s everyone said that using an UV filter would prevent haze in the images. I tried to spot the difference, but couldent se much difference my self. As I understand newer multi coated lenses usually will prevent UV from passing through the lens. I am asking because the multi coated filters called «protector» from among Hoya, seem to have a near 100% transmission and no flare at all. I am wondering if the newer Mamiya lenses ( KL, N, Rz ) have a good UV surpression by them selfes?

 

[Peter Schrager]

don't believe it at all. is it possible to add another layer of glass on top of another and not have reduced transmission. just think about it logically
never used them; never will...they degrade the picture...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I thought UV filters were to stop bluish images?

 

[MattKing]

I thought UV filters were to stop bluish images?

No, they are to stop UV from affecting the result.
Under certain circumstances, UV exposure can add blue.
But in addition, UV tends to scatter in the atmosphere, and that can result in a veiling haze that is not visible to the eye, but is responded to by the film.
I don't believe that the coatings and glass used in modern lenses are targeted toward UV. UV filters are.

 

[Luckless]

It has been awhile since I cared enough to read those fancy "Lens testing" result webpages, but wasn't impact of UV factored into those? I would imagine this 'really depends' on what lens and camera you're talking about.

At some point I would like to take the time to be able to run a geek-project for something like this with a bunch of filters and different cameras/lenses/scenes to judge the overall impact of it. Always felt like the type of thing that some photographers make a larger stink about than what the end results typically would suggest, but given the number of photographers online posting images showing 'how bad' not using a UV filter is vs the number posting to show how little difference it makes that I've seen over the years, I figure it is the kind of topic that I should eventually sit down and formally test for myself...

 

[AgX]

-) the UV filter will reduce haze where there is haze...
Thus at far sights the reflection of UV light from particles in the air between subject and camera.

-) Antireflective coatings are in first instance optimised on enhancing the passage of light in the visual spectrum. In single layer coatings at their best they just reflect UV light as much as the plain glass would do. Thus 95% of the UV light still can pass. However advanced lens coatings may show even enhanced reflectivity in the near UV range, but that still is only a fraction of what a UV filter will block.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would guess the type and brand of film you. I remember those data sheets of color film showing the spectral sensitivity of different wave lengths of the film. If your film is bluish due to UV, you could always fix it in post. But I used UV filters until the photographer that's a Brooks graduate said they were a waste of time. UV filters do protect the front element of the lens though.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe UV filters are better in the mountains?

 

[Paul Howell]

Heavy haze, smoke, a distance shot a UV haze filter can make a difference. I think in AA's The Negative there are pictures with and without a UV filter. As I live in the low desert with a fair amount of dust I use a UV. Where I don't much of a difference in near the coast with marine haze. To reduce blue a Sklylight is recommend.

 

[btaylor]

+1, what Paul said. My experience as well. Yea, does nothing for coastal fog/haze.

 

[Colin Corneau]

They're the cheapest form of camera insurance, is my experience.

 

[Vilk]

They're the cheapest form of camera insurance, is my experience.

+1

over the years i wrote off half a dozen filters through hard drops--shattered glass, brass mount bent beyond repair--never any damage to lens or body

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

In the 80’s everyone said that using an UV filter would prevent haze in the images. I tried to spot the difference, but couldent se much difference my self.

Exactly my same experience. Moreover, all "tests" that I've seen published were obviously counterfeit.

As in my whole life I never even remotely hypothetically risked to smash the front lens of the camera against anything, I got completely rid of UV filters that did nothing but degrade optical performance of very expensive lenses around 25 years ago.

 

[guangong]

For most lenses, a UV filter serves no purpose because modern lenses already filter UV light. If memory serves me correctly, most high end lenses began to advertise that they were corrected for UV beginning in late 70s, so no technical need for an added filter. Older lenses do benefit. However, while not needed on modern lenses, a high quality filter should have no effect on image but can protect front lens surface from abrasion, scratches, rain, fog, etc. Much cheaper to scratch a filter than a lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

I should have added to my post what quangong has stated, most of my gear is very vintage, with my modern lens, late model Minolta A mount and Sony I only use a UV or a Skylight if in windy conditions and I'm concerned about blowing sand.. I use a lens hood which keeps me from banging the front element.

 

[GLS]

I have never seen any convincing evidence that UV filters make any difference either. I also do not use them (or clear filters) as lens protection, as that is what lens hoods are for. The only exceptions to this where I would consider it is to protect from fine blowing dust/grit, or salt water spray, but in all honesty if I was going to encounter those conditions I probably just wouldn't photograph at all.

 

[logan2z]

I know this to-filter-or-not-to-filter discussion comes up every once in a while and the effect of filters on image quality is always hotly debated, but it does feel 'wrong' to me somehow to buy an expensive lens and then put a relatively inexpensive piece of glass in front of it.

I use a hood for protection and would probably only consider using a filter if I were shooting in adverse conditions, at the beach (blowing sand, salt air), etc. When I'm not shooting I keep the lens cap in place to protect the front element.

 

[tezzasmall]

Personally, I keep a filter on the front of all my lens - mostly for protection, for if you damage the front element of a lens, you'll probably need to buy a new one.

And I keep them on the lenses for all my shooting. I've taken them off and done comparative shots and as long as you keep them clean, I could see no difference, with or without a filter.

As with a lot of topics, it's each to their own and all that.

Terry S

 

[AgX]

+1

over the years i wrote off half a dozen filters through hard drops--shattered glass, brass mount bent beyond repair--never any damage to lens or body

So I assume the majority of damage, if not all could, already could have been spared by mounting just an empty filter-ring.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

So I assume the majority of damage, if not all could, already could have been spared by mounting just an empty filter-ring.

Or - simpler still - by taking decent care of one's equipment, rather than treating it as "just another tool"...

 

[narsuitus]

The filter shown below did not survive the fall on concrete – the camera and lens did.

There are two photographic groups or camps – those who routinely use a filter to protect the front element of their lens and those who do not.

I was once a firm believer in protecting the front element of my lenses with UV/Haze filters. However, when I evaluated the results of an image quality test I was conducting between two 35mm high-resolution black & white films (H&W Control VTE film and Kodak High Contrast Copy film), I switched camps.

During the test, I shot a tripod-mounted camera with the mirror locked up and with a UV/Haze filter. I also took some shots without a UV/Haze filter. When I noticed that even a high-quality UV/Haze filter caused some loss of image quality, I removed the UV/Haze filters on all my lenses because I needed to capture as much detail possible in my large prints. Since then, I no longer use protective filters on my 35mm lenses, my Mamiya medium format lenses, or my large format lenses. Since then, the only time I use a UV/Haze filter is when I actually need it to reduce UV light (such as when shooting film at high altitudes or in snow) or when I need to protect my lens from damage while shooting in a hostile environment (such as when shooting mud wrestling or food fights, in storms or industrial plants, or dirt bike and horse races).

When I need a filter to protect my lens, I use a medium or a high-quality filter. I avoid the reasonably priced low-quality filters because they degrade the image too much for my taste.


Filter for lens protection by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Luckless]

As far as protection goes, thin glass filters really only offer protection from things like dust, grit, and spray.

If you're relying on a thin piece of glass you can probably break with your bare hands to protect your camera gear from a forceful impact, then you're probably asking it to do something it is entirely unsuited for...

If you want to protect against drops and such, try a lens hood that can act as a crumple zone for your camera and absorb the energy. Or try not dropping camera gear in ways said gear isn't likely to shrug off easily?

 

[MattKing]

Filters are a lot easier to clean than lenses are.
And a filter that has a fingerprint on it is a lot easier to deal with than a lens with a fingerprint on it.
If you are going to use high resolution film, mirror lock-up and a sturdy tripod, consider removing your UV filter for that/those shots. That is about the only situation which might reveal a small reduction of quality resulting from the inclusion of a good quality, undamaged and clean filter.

 

[abruzzi]

As far as protection goes, thin glass filters really only offer protection from things like dust, grit, and spray.

I was actually surprised at the toughness of the filter glass. I had an old filter that I didn't need--I think it was a Tiffen UV--and I needed a thread extender to get a lens working on macro rail/slide duplicator, so I decided to sacrifice the filter. I placed the filter on a work bend, and hit the glass with the but of a large screwdriver to shatter the glass. It took quite a few hard bangs before it cracked and then significantly more effort to crack the glass to the point that I cold pull the shards out (after which I saw the ring I could have unscrewed to remove the glass without breaking it...) While I don't use a "protection" filter on my lenses, it did make the protection part make more sense.

 

[John Koehrer]

Gosharooty, You can, you can't.
Can't we all just get along?..................Oh, wait..............Thought about it.......................Nope ya gotta do it my way!