UV haze filter or just plain clear

[mexipike]

I shoot some color but mostly black and white. I just used a mamiya 7ii on a trip to europe and decided I liked it so much I had to get one, that particular camera I was used filter less but I worry about scratching the big front element so I'm looking to get a good filter on the front. Most likely one of the nice B W ones. I checked my summicron on my leica and noticed I have always had a bw uv haze on it. They also make a non uv haze version that's just clear.

does the uv haze offer any advantage or disadvantage for black and white?

Also any suggestions for a good filter for the mamiya 65mm lens are appreciated, I was probably going to go with b +w mrc.

Thanks.

 

[Alan Gales]

UV filters are said to work best at high altitudes or at the beach to cut down on haze. How much they help is probably pretty minimal anywhere else. They do work great as a "protective' filter or you can just buy a clear filter. I get the UV's because there is a ton of them out there on the used market cheap. I standardized on the 77mm size for my large format lenses and the larger the filter the higher the cost.

Should you use UV filters or clear filters on a lens? It's an old argument. Some say that the more glass you put in front of a lens the more chances of flare or any filter glass will not be as sharp as lens glass. I always used UV filters on my five Zeiss lenses for my 35mm Contax without any image degradation that I could see. I also shaded my lenses when outside to reduce chance of flare. When I sold my lenses the buyers couldn't believe that the lens coatings looked like new. I avoided coating scratches because I didn't need to clean my lens glass. Only my filter glass got dirty.

B+W, Heliopan and Hoya HMC are all high quality filters.

 

[John Koehrer]

Oh dear.

A can of worms this one is.

I use 'em(UV). I doubt that anyone can ACTUALLY SEE any difference with B&W film.
With slides there is a subtle color difference in shadows. That's IF you put them side by side on a lightbox.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Uv because why not. Skylight ones as well. Anything as long as it's coated or multicoated. Many times I shoot without any filters at all, especially at night where they can catch reflections even with the best multicoated ones. My favs are the brass b+w and heliopan ones as well. Extra weight but they thread on and off like butter and are made very well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I use a UV/Haze filter all the time. When you don't need it, it does little to help, but when you do need it, it is there and ready to go. Also, I have saved lenses twice by having that protection on the front.

PE

 

[Two23]

I've never used "protective" filters and have never had any problems. I have had a filter shatter and THAT scratched up the lens. I use a lens hood, which not only helps contrast but also deflects a lot of problems before they can even get to my lens. When I'm not taking a photo, I use a lens cap. It's 100% effective, where a filter can shatter and do even more damage. One problem with filters is they can cause flare, even the coated ones can. If you are using a very old lens, such as 1940s Leica lenses, the coatings on those are more fragile. I'm just more careful and keep a lens cap on.


Kent in SD

 

[Arklatexian]

Where I live most, if not all, haze is atmospheric haze made up of minute water droplets. Haze filters will not filter this out. If you want a filter that will filter this type of haze, dig out your polarizing filter. "Haze Filters" work best in dry, high altitude situations and, of course, as lens protectors as has already been suggested....Regards

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Like some of the others I also use a UV filters which I have no problems with it.

Jeff

 

[trythis]

I use cheap tiffen uncoated uv filters on everything except my series E 50mm. They are so cheap I can afford to replace them. If I am shooting something with filter challenging light, I just remove the filter. I am not a careful, methodical person so protective filters are a must for me. If I ran around the way I do without UV filters, I would only have a couple lenses left.

I remove them when I use a different filter like a yellow or polarizer.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

good choice; you'll be fine.

 

[Hatchetman]

No because in bright lights, ie train headlights, you will get flare/ghosts.

 

[mexipike]

Thanks everyone for helping me to clear this up. It sounds like there is a good reason to us a UV haze over a clear with no quality loss, which was my question. I am going to put in an order for the BW uv haze filter as I like the one on my leica.

I understand the advice to not use a filter but I know myself too well and tend to get all sorts of sand, beer, whiskey, coffee, and all other sorts of things on my filters and really don't want to expose my lens to this. I would consider just using the hood but I really hate the Mamiya hood, you can't get a cap to the lens easily and you have to look through the slits in the viewfinder.

I just wanted advice of UV vs clear, which i got and definitely want no part in the filter vs no filter argument that has been going on forever!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Not to use a filter as a form of lens protection is rubbish. Better to crinkle a $150 filter than the front element of a $3,000 lens. No real discernible difference between UV/Haze. But, cheap uncoated filters slapped on asp/apo lenses is ridiculous. The quality of polarisers is especially critical on highly corrected lenses (Kaesemann) while UV(0) / protector lenses should also be of very high quality.

 

[benveniste]

Most non-chromogenic black and white film is sensitive to UV light and can benefit from UV filtration. The coatings and optical cements used in modern lenses absorb quite a bit of UV on their own, but from what I remember of Mamiya 7 lenses they tend to use relatively simple optical formulas. So especially at altitude, when on the beach, or when on the water I'd use a UV filter with such gear. I like the B+W 010 MRC filters for their brass filter rings, but there are a quite a number of other multicoated UV filters which will work fine as well.

Any "legit" UV filter will also absorb some visible light in the violet range, so with more complex lenses or daylight balanced color film other than Velvia 50 a clear filter is fractionally better.

 

[AgX]

They do work great as a "protective' filter or you can just buy a clear filter.

To my knowledge there are no plain-glass "filters" offered in a mount.

 

[Alan Gales]

To my knowledge there are no plain-glass "filters" offered in a mount.

Here you go!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...6111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html/prm/alsVwDtl

 

[AgX]

Oops, even made by B&W.

I see nothing of that kind in my printed catalogues, must be something recent. Thank you!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Most non-chromogenic black and white film is sensitive to UV light and can benefit from UV filtration. The coatings and optical cements used in modern lenses absorb quite a bit of UV on their own, but from what I remember of Mamiya 7 lenses they tend to use relatively simple optical formulas. So especially at altitude, when on the beach, or when on the water I'd use a UV filter with such gear. I like the B+W 010 MRC filters for their brass filter rings, but there are a quite a number of other multicoated UV filters which will work fine as well.

Any "legit" UV filter will also absorb some visible light in the violet range, so with more complex lenses or daylight balanced color film other than Velvia 50 a clear filter is fractionally better.

ALL photographic emulsions are sensitive to UV radiation and must be protected from it.

This is done by UV filter overcoats on the film, and overcoats on the lenses.

As one goes up in altitude, the UV radiation becomes greater and greater until special UV filtration is needed. This is not mandatory under normal photographic use, but in aerial photography it is. Kodak makes a special UV filter set for such use.

HOWEVER, the protection offered by ANY filter is well worth the price. I use a UV or Haze filter all the time. I also often use the "shade" on my lens, extended for extra protection.

PE

 

[Alan Gales]

Oops, even made by B&W.

I see nothing of that kind in my printed catalogues, must be something recent. Thank you!

You are welcome. I was looking at UV filters a few years ago and I ran across clear filters. I don't know how long they have been out or how long B+W has been making them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use a UV/Haze filter all the time. When you don't need it, it does little to help, but when you do need it, it is there and ready to go. Also, I have saved lenses twice by having that protection on the front.

PE

Wot he says.

 

[benveniste]

This is done by UV filter overcoats on the film, and overcoats on the lenses.

As one goes up in altitude, the UV radiation becomes greater and greater until special UV filtration is needed. This is not mandatory under normal photographic use, but in aerial photography it is. Kodak makes a special UV filter set for such use.

HOWEVER, the protection offered by ANY filter is well worth the price. I use a UV or Haze filter all the time. I also often use the "shade" on my lens, extended for extra protection.

PE

According to NOAA, UV light increases at about 4-5% per 1000 feet of altitude. So, yes, if you are shooting at altitudes where humans need supplementary oxygen to survive, a UV filter may help even with color negative film, but if you're using a zoom lens with lots of element groups you're still probably fine without one.

The never-ending debate about whether to use a protective filter has already consumed far too many electrons. I urge reader to make their own choice based on their subjective weighting of risks and benefits. Personally, I only use a protective filter under adverse environmental conditions. Should you elect to use a filter full time, I strongly recommend a multicoated one, which rules out any L39 or "Haze" filters I've seen marketed.

 

[AgX]

Should you elect to use a filter full time, I strongly recommend a multicoated one, which rules out any L39 or "Haze" filters I've seen marketed.

Heliopan offer the UV filter un-coated, single-coated and multicoated.
B&W offer it single-coated, multi-coated and multicoated plus repellant layer.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Tiffen also makes an excellent multicoated clear / protection filter with similar water repellancy characteristics to B+W and HOYA SUPER HMC, so too does Kenko Zéta's L39 filters (made by Hoya).

There is more to just slapping any filter on the lens. What about element clearance? This is where extra care needs to be taken, especially with new users unfamiliar with asp. front elements and limited (if any) frontal clearance for filters. Low profile filters for ultra-wide MF lenses may contact asp. front elements (true for example with Canon's TS-E 24mm f3.5L tilt/shift lens where B+W filters work well) . I don't support the thinking of "my lens is safe I've never had an accident!" at all. Ever seen what the top of a tripod leg hinge can do to the accidental forward drop of the camera lens making contact with it, because you forgot to lock the ballhead? It's not a pretty sight, and repair very often exceeds the original cost of the lens. So a filter is very cheap and very good insurance indeed.

 

[Photo Engineer]

According to NOAA, UV light increases at about 4-5% per 1000 feet of altitude. So, yes, if you are shooting at altitudes where humans need supplementary oxygen to survive, a UV filter may help even with color negative film, but if you're using a zoom lens with lots of element groups you're still probably fine without one.

The never-ending debate about whether to use a protective filter has already consumed far too many electrons. I urge reader to make their own choice based on their subjective weighting of risks and benefits. Personally, I only use a protective filter under adverse environmental conditions. Should you elect to use a filter full time, I strongly recommend a multicoated one, which rules out any L39 or "Haze" filters I've seen marketed.

We have some people who have climbed high mountains and one who intended to go to the top of Everest. I've shot photos at nearly 60,000 ft and know people who have shot at around 250,000 ft, so don't be so conservative in your judgment. There are a lot of "fringe" people out there looking for answers of any sort for any condition.

The consensus is to use a good UV or Haze filter both for those conditions under which they are needed (and crop up unexpectedly (such as going from 20,000 ft to 60,000 ft on a whim so to speak )) and to protect the lens in case of an accident.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just came back from offroading in the range of 11,000 to 13,000 feet and I was taking photographs with UV filters.