Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,709   Posts: 1,482,886   Online: 1041
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27

    UV Filter with modern multi-coated lenses?

    Googling yields near-useless results since 99% of the posts on the interwebs are digital shooters.

    I shoot film at high altitudes (7000ft+) as well as shoreline. What I want to know is if using modern day multi-coated lenses usurp the need for a UV filter for film?

    Would a UV filter really benefit me? I know digital sensors are more sensitive to IR and not UV, yet film is sensitive to excessive UV.

    If a UV filter is in the mix, then I have a question:

    What is the difference between a Hoya DMC Pro1 and a Hoya SHMC (besides the price)?

  2. #2
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,378
    Images
    15
    A skylight (1B) filter might be more useful at those altitudes because of the much more pronounced atmospheric haze. 1B filters are lightly pink. UV is colourless and is most commonly used as protection against impact damage of the front lens element.

    Digital filters have extensive coating applied because of the risk of ghosting and flare. They are an overkill for film use. Hoya's Super HMC has around 6- 12 coatings either or both sides depending on the filter — notably UV, 1B and POL filters, in slimline or standard thickness mounts. It is my personal belief that it is pointless putting a $5 filter on a $5,000 lens: essential match the filter quality to the lens. In the same vein, it's not a wise thing to leave a lens unprotected — my earliest memory of disaster reminds me so!

    Research Hoya's filters on their website: http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/hoya-02.html
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    One beautiful image is worth
    a thousand hours of therapy.


    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
    to save the environment."
    .::Ansel Adams






  3. #3
    ath
    ath is online now
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    884
    I never had issues in the Andes up to 5100m when shooting Kodak Elite Chrome 100 without filter.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Not all UV filters are created equal, and a good one, like B+W or Heliopan will be more effective than others. Bob Atkins did a good comparison of UV filters some years ago as an article over on photo.net.

    Multicoating reduces flare and improves contrast by reducing reflections between lens elements. It isn't particularly designed to reduce UV transmission.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Not all UV filters are created equal, and a good one, like B+W or Heliopan will be more effective than others. Bob Atkins did a good comparison of UV filters some years ago as an article over on photo.net.

    Multicoating reduces flare and improves contrast by reducing reflections between lens elements. It isn't particularly designed to reduce UV transmission.
    I believe that test showed that the Hoya SHMC and a Tiffen variant actually did better than all the others. I remember that comparison you speak of.

    My overall question: Is it really worth it for me? (I'm looking for UV filtration since I'm shooting film - not so much lens protection).
    Will having a $30 Hoya SHMC filter on my $140 Nikon 50mm/1.8D help or hurt?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBaz View Post
    Would a UV filter really benefit me? I know digital sensors are more sensitive to IR and not UV, yet film is sensitive to excessive UV.
    What sort of film do you use and with what lenses?

    Modern Daylight balanced color film is relatively insensitive to UV, and so is chromogenic B&W and TMAX-100. At least some tungsten balanced color film and most other black and white films are sensitive to UV.

    Two things in modern lenses can block UV. The first are broadband anti-reflective coatings and the second is modern optical cement. The problem is that lens manufacturers don't typically publish transmission curves for their BBAR coatings. Occasionally you'll see an early example like this 1973 Minolta Patent, but more recent stuff is much harder to find.

    Personally? If I was at 7000 feet and using Tessars, Planars, or other relatively simple designs with traditional black and white film, I'd add a UV filter unless I was worried about flare. For more complex primes and zoom lenses, I'd only add one in adverse environmental conditions. I use B+W 010 MRC's for this purpose; when I tested one (with digital, sorry) I found it blocked about 1.8% of the incoming light and imposed a color shift of about 25 degrees K. I don't consider either significant unless you have to do precise matching of shots with and without filters.

    What is the difference between a Hoya DMC Pro1 and a Hoya SHMC (besides the price)?
    The DMC are slimmer filters and have a hard top coat to make them easier to clean.

  7. #7
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,378
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBaz View Post
    [...]
    My overall question: [...]Will having a $30 Hoya SHMC filter on my $140 Nikon 50mm/1.8D help or hurt?
    Probably not!
    I doubt very much it will make much difference to your images at all. UV filters are also called variously "blanks", "protectors", "UVOs"... Are you really extra-critical of image quality and characteristics when flying around with the birds?
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    One beautiful image is worth
    a thousand hours of therapy.


    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
    to save the environment."
    .::Ansel Adams






  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,826
    UV's have a slight yellow cast. High altitude have an even deeper yellow cast. Check the B+W site(I assume they have one) for further information.
    I'm assuming you're shooting B&W film, not color if it's slides at altitude they're going to have a blue cast.
    Keep in mind, the lenses coatings are designed to give a neutral color, the filter is to correct for atmospheric haze and the like.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBaz View Post
    I believe that test showed that the Hoya SHMC and a Tiffen variant actually did better than all the others. I remember that comparison you speak of.

    My overall question: Is it really worth it for me? (I'm looking for UV filtration since I'm shooting film - not so much lens protection).
    Will having a $30 Hoya SHMC filter on my $140 Nikon 50mm/1.8D help or hurt?
    You might go back and check for details of Atkins' comparison (the Tiffen Haze-1 filter is particularly good, Tiffen UV less so), but in answer to the question, yes, at altitude with modern lenses and films, I'd recommend using an effective UV filter for landscapes, and I'm not an advocate of filters for protection when there is no obvious hazard.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    262
    As you state you like working along the shoreline, then a good reason for using a UV over your lens is for protection of the front element from minute particles of salt water spray, which is present in the atmosphere near sea water, even though you may not see it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin