Buying a UV Haze Filter...

[robert_conner]

<p>Hi,<br>

The price on these filters are from $10 to $90. Are the more expensive ones worth it and what is the difference between the filters?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Bob</p>

[SCL]

<p>In my experience the primary differences include: size of the filter, durability of the ring itself, transmission characteristics of the filter, thickness of the filter and/or coatings to reduce internal reflections. Whether the more expensive ones are worth the extra cost really depends on your use and expectations. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>A plain filter is all that is needed for digital cameras. Most films were oversensitive (by comparison to the eye) to UV wavelength, hence the two-birds-with-one-stone. NTIM since UV filters are just as cheap or cheaper than 'protection' filters these days. Tests in their heyday didn't show much actual UV filtration by many filters, in any case.<br /> Any glass in front of the lens is likely to degrade the image a little, but the effect is so small that nothing but the most rigorous tests would demonstrate it, unless you have actually got one of the proverbial soda-bottle-bottom versions.</p>

<p>Stimulated by a basic magpie instinct (awk, shiny thing, get!), I actually bought a bright red 72mm plain filter from China for something like $3 with shipping. It did make any lens pass for 'L' sorta, but I have to confess that even though I got it for a joke, it seems to work about as well as any other, more expensive filters I have.</p>

<p>Multicoating is helpful if you use a filter at all, since one problem with anything on the front of the lens is increasing flare and reflections.</p>

<p>I can't resist throwing in (yes, again, get used to it) my objective test of filter effects at <br /> http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WWb7</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Cheap filters may not actually do anything with regard to blocking UV (which is mostly what Haze filters do). They may also differ in the amount (if any) of the blue end of the spectrum they block (which stronger haze filters are supposed to do also).</p>

<p>See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/filters.html</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I don't use UV filters unless a lot of dirt, dust, or liquid is flying through the air. In those cases, a quality, multi-coated glass filter is the only optically sound choice. </p>

[savagesax]

It's great to have an inexpensive filter protesting the front of your lens, along with a lens hood and a lens

cap.

 

However when I'm actually shooting these filters come off of the cameras. I'd rather not use a protective filter

of any type when photographing.

 

I use filters, but for whatever effects I'm after, such as a 4 or 6 point Star filter, or even a Softar 1/2 filter

when doing closeup work of people's faces. So there are times when you must use a filter.

 

So I'm in total agreement with the others that have posted. Protective filters can surely effect the outcome of

an image in a negative way.

[johne37179]

<p>Other than a polaroid filter, I do my filter effects digitally in PS. I do have UV filters that I put on the lenses in situations that might be hazardous -- lots of blowing dust and dirt, etc. But other than that -- I remain unfiltered. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Every time I buy a lens I'll buy a UV filter to go on it, and typically go for B+W or Hoya in the $50~90 range. But I'm not thrilled with the prices. You've just bought an expensive item, are kind of reeling from that, now the upsell for accessories.</p>

[savagesax]

Sorry folks, I had a typo - I meat "Protecting," not "Protesting!"

[Marcus Ian]

<p>IME, the filters can degrade IQ anywhere from 'barely noticeably' to 'significantly' depending on the quality of the filter, and the quality of the lens, and the size and curvature of the front element, and the direction/intensity of the light. </p>

<p>But a good filter + a good lens doesn't necessarily mean minimal degredation - to achieve that, simply use a good lens. If you are determined to shoot with an extra piece of glass protecting your lens from the light it needs to see, at least make sure you get one with an MC anti reflective coating. Price and brand (IME) make very little tangible difference in the effectiveness of the 'multi-coating' - although there is constantly some fantastic marketing description for the latest greatest process.</p>

<p>That said, I do occasionally use filters. In sea spray, and blowing sand/dirt. To protect the lens from virtually everything else (except children's fingers). The lens hood is very rarely inadequate.</p>

<p>The detracting effect of filters (other than the actual absorbance of UV rays, which is easy to test), is very hard to quantify in the lab because so many factors affect how much IQ is affected, and by doing something as simple as shifting the incoming direction of light, you may completely change how much it affects the final product. </p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>Some front elements are just so exposed that you seem to touch them every time you take the lens cap off. That, or the dust build up from leaving a lens hood on uncapped all the time is surely going to degrade the image more than a clear filter you really can clean with a pocket handkerchief? The zoom lens I use to record treatments & leave on most of the time carries a coated (I think; don't care) UV filter. While I am fairly uncritical, the jpegs are clean and look just fine, and achieve the limited objectives I set.<br>

As Marcus says, any other lenses, filters only as sensible.<br>

That said, I use polarising filters a lot for copying, shooting raw files, and although they should be a lot worse than UV filters as they have more surfaces, I have yet to be able to pick up any loss of clarity or resolution in the images.<br>

Most UV filters filter UV just fine. A UV black light & photocopy paper with UV brighteners will tell you that, but most modern lenses do pretty much as well anyway.</p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br>

<br>

Noticing the concern that UV filters block little<br>

to zero actual UV transmission, I wanna mention<br>

that this is normal. Excess UV results in excess<br>

blue response ... from FILM. The purpose of UV/<br>

Skylite/Haze filters is NOT for them to do the<br>

impossible [can't filter out radiation with a nearly<br>

toadally clear glass] but simply to do something<br>

reasonable, which is that these filters do NOT<br>

cut UV, they just cut BLUE, to somewhat help<br>

rebalance the final image away from excess blue. <br>

<br>

Little does of reality never hurts [bIG doses can<br>

be painful, I know .... ]. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Any normal 'clear' UV filter will cut around 90% (I forget precisely) of the UV in the wide range of frequencies described as UV; UVa & UVb.<br>

To cut all UV with the filtering glasses readily available would require a filter which intrudes into the visible range.<br>

I expect some are better than others, but I know some cheap 'UV filters' are just flat glass. <br>

As far as I know, pink skylight 1B, also 81a/b/c, all for killing a bit of blue, don't do more than any ordinary glass to filter UV.</p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>You can read Tiffen's specs for UV/Haze filters. Actual<br /> reduction in UV transmission varies from a few percent<br /> to about 25% at 400nm. There's one exception, which<br /> almost nobody really uses. IIRC it's the "Haze 2A" and<br /> that cuts 39%. So, as a genre, the filters peeps use as<br /> mainly protective of their lens will generally transmit<br /> 85% to 100% of the UV incident upon them. <br /> <br /> The real problem is not really the UV incident upon the<br /> filter. You could even be shooting a distant scene with<br /> a ridiculously tunnel-like lens shade, yourself and your<br /> camera indoors shooting out a window, etc ... IOW not<br /> much UV radiation incident upon your lens, yet film is<br /> gonna show a heavy blue cast cuz the scene is soaked<br /> in UV that scattering in a zillion directions [by all the<br /> micro particle in the air]. You can't filter that out cuz<br /> most of it's not headed for your lens. The air is simply,<br /> basically, glowing blue, visible blue, and film is also<br /> rather over-sensitive to visible blue. It's this blue that<br /> these mild warming filters attempt to correct.</p>

<p>Corroberative of above statement is that back when <br /> color film was seldom printed, mostly viewed as the<br /> original transparency, "UV/Have/Skylite" filters were<br /> NOT labeled or graded according to their ability to<br /> cut varying small degrees of UV transmission, but<br /> were labeled according to which films they were [at<br /> best] able to correct. IOW, you had filters optimized<br /> for Kodachrome, Anscochrome, Agfachrome, etc etc.<br /> Thaz cuz what's being corrected is a film's response <br /> characteristics, not the UV content of the rays that <br /> form the image upon that film.<br /> <br /> OTOH, if you wanna get uselessly picky, just get away<br /> from the 400nm typical cutoff standard for pictorial<br /> imaging. Then you find that glass filter do cut 90% or<br /> even 100% of UV ... not just the "UV" filters, but ALL<br /> your glass filters, even a blue filter. Get to the shorter<br /> wavelengths [beyond 400nm] and if you do forensic<br /> imaging or astrophoto [on film acoarst], you can't even<br /> use glass lenses. Your lens needs be ground from some<br /> other transparent material, typically it's quartz crystal. <br>

IOW, glass is simply opaque to UV the ranges below<br>

approximately 400nm. Glass or concrete both look the<br>

same to shorter wavelength UV. </p>

<p> </p>