Good vs. Bad UV Haze filters?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Paul Ciszek on 4 Jan 2010 17:49 I came across this site: http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ The author used a UV/Visible spectrophotometer to compare different UV/Haze filters. It shows four filters doing no serious attenuation down to 350nm (which was as far as their instrument would go). The "B+W" UV filter looks the best to me, with a flat transmission curve across the visible and abrupt absorption beginning in the high 300's; I wish the article identified the "B+W" filter more specifically. The Hoya filter looks to me like it would interfere with color balance in the visible range. Since I live in Colorado and will probably be taking most of my pictures at high altitudes, a good UV filter is necessary. Has anyone here compared different UV filters? My camera is a Lumix FZ35, which takes 46mm filters. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: J�rgen Exner on 4 Jan 2010 17:55 nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >Since I live in Colorado and will probably be taking most of my pictures >at high altitudes, a good UV filter is necessary. Actually I strongly doubt that UV-filters are of much use on digital cameras at all. The sensors are painfully optimized for visible light and not (or at the very least not overly) sensitive to UV light. If at all you may want to adjust the white balance, but that should be sufficient. jue
From: Rich on 4 Jan 2010 22:47 On Jan 4, 5:49 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > I came across this site:http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ > The author used a UV/Visible spectrophotometer to compare different > UV/Haze filters. It shows four filters doing no serious attenuation > down to 350nm (which was as far as their instrument would go). The > "B+W" UV filter looks the best to me, with a flat transmission curve > across the visible and abrupt absorption beginning in the high 300's; > I wish the article identified the "B+W" filter more specifically. > The Hoya filter looks to me like it would interfere with color balance > in the visible range. > Unless you are completely paranoid about your lenses, or if you are sure you are likely to damage the front element of a lens, UV filters are a complete waste of time and a major problem where reflections are concerned. Use a hood, forget the filter.
From: John Passaneau on 5 Jan 2010 10:27 Rich wrote: > On Jan 4, 5:49 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >> I came across this site:http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ >> The author used a UV/Visible spectrophotometer to compare different >> UV/Haze filters. It shows four filters doing no serious attenuation >> down to 350nm (which was as far as their instrument would go). The >> "B+W" UV filter looks the best to me, with a flat transmission curve >> across the visible and abrupt absorption beginning in the high 300's; >> I wish the article identified the "B+W" filter more specifically. >> The Hoya filter looks to me like it would interfere with color balance >> in the visible range. >> > > Unless you are completely paranoid about your lenses, or if you are > sure you are likely to damage the front element of a lens, UV filters > are a complete waste of time and a major problem where reflections are > concerned. Use a hood, forget the filter. In film photography the UV or haze filter was important because film was more sensitive to UV than visible light. The first films used were only sensitive to blue light. Later dyes were found that extended the sensitivity down into the reds. On the other hand, solid state detectors made of silicon are more sensitive to infrared light than UV. Almost all digital cameras sensors have infrared filters over the sensors to reduce this problem. I speculate that many of the lens that have been specially designed for digital incorporates infrared filtering in there design which would have the effect of improving the contrast of the lens. A UV filter is not as necessary as it was in the past. But strong UV may cause the glass in your lens to fluoresces giving a color tint over your photo. There is strong debate over the value of a filter protecting the front element of your lens is worth the trouble but all agree that in very harsh environments it's a good thing to do. My suggestion it to try a filter and see if it helps. John Passaneau Physics dept Penn State University
From: No spam please on 5 Jan 2010 11:32
"John Passaneau" <w3jxp(a)arrl.net> wrote in message news:4B435A4F.8000403(a)arrl.net... > Rich wrote: >> On Jan 4, 5:49 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >>> I came across this site:http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ >>> The author used a UV/Visible spectrophotometer to compare different >>> UV/Haze filters. It shows four filters doing no serious attenuation >>> down to 350nm (which was as far as their instrument would go). The >>> "B+W" UV filter looks the best to me, with a flat transmission curve >>> across the visible and abrupt absorption beginning in the high 300's; >>> I wish the article identified the "B+W" filter more specifically. The >>> Hoya filter looks to me like it would interfere with color balance >>> in the visible range. >>> >> >> Unless you are completely paranoid about your lenses, or if you are >> sure you are likely to damage the front element of a lens, UV filters >> are a complete waste of time and a major problem where reflections are >> concerned. Use a hood, forget the filter. > > > In film photography the UV or haze filter was important because film was > more sensitive to UV than visible light. The first films used were only > sensitive to blue light. Later dyes were found that extended the > sensitivity down into the reds. On the other hand, solid state detectors > made of silicon are more sensitive to infrared light than UV. Almost all > digital cameras sensors have infrared filters over the sensors to reduce > this problem. I speculate that many of the lens that have been specially > designed for digital incorporates infrared filtering in there design which > would have the effect of improving the contrast of the lens. A UV filter > is not as necessary as it was in the past. But strong UV may cause the > glass in your lens to fluoresces giving a color tint over your photo. > There is strong debate over the value of a filter protecting the front > element of your lens is worth the trouble but all agree that in very harsh > environments it's a good thing to do. My suggestion it to try a filter and > see if it helps. > > John Passaneau > Physics dept Penn State University Hello folks. I dropped a 24mm lens onto a carpeted floor. The UV filter was a write-off but the lens itself was fine. Bye for now, R. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |