PDA

View Full Version : To use a UV-Haze Filter or not use a UV-Haze Filter, that is the question...



manfrominternet
29-May-2019, 03:45
I'm looking for any advice about using filters for LF photography, specifically using a UV-Haze filter. I recently purchased an excellent set of lenses that had B+W UV-Haze F-Pro filters and Tiffen UV-Haze filters attached. The lenses also all had a step up ring to 77mm for some reason. (Any guesses as to why 77mm? The guy who sold me the lenses was selling it for his father and didn't know why.)

Anyway, I was originally thinking of ditching the Tiffen filters for something better, even though they look like they're in great shape. (Are Tiffen UV-Haze filters bad?) Then I did a little research wondering if I even needed any filters and found that there are two general camps - 1.) Those who think filters are essential for protecting your lenses, and 2.) Those that think filters are a waste of money and will degrade your image quality, however slightly.

However, a lot of the argument was based on digital sensors, not LF photography.

So what do you guys think? Should I be using a UV-Haze filter with my lenses or no? Should I upgrade the included Tiffen UV-Haze filters to B+W UV-Have F-Pro filters?

Thanks!

Jim Jones
29-May-2019, 06:01
I only use filters to protect lenses in unusual conditions. This has resulted in sometimes cleaning lenses without the proper materials at hands, with eventual damage to the lens front surface. Because of this, over many decades I've retired two favorite lenses, a 50mm Summicron and an Ektar 203mm f/7.7. It has been a modest cost for the freedom from unwanted reflections, ghost images, and perhaps other less conspicuous problems from shooting without filters. Today's quality multilayer coatings give less trouble than the uncoated filters of those early years. If I was starting out in photography now, protective filters would be more logical. For protection, a lens hood usually works well and can be used with filters for double protection.

pendennis
29-May-2019, 06:44
I've always used UV filters on lenses for my film cameras (35mm to 4x5). Whenever I used Ektachrome, they helped kill some of the blue cast that Ektachrome had, they also helped a bit when the sky was really blue. As you noted, digital puts an end to that need. I have had accidents where the filter and not a front lens element was broken - cheap insurance. Folks also swore by Skylight 1-A's, and they did slightly cool the image, especially on transparencies.

I've typically used B+W and Nikon filters. The U.S. made Tiffens are well made, as are some of the older Hoyas.

The best way to test, is to use with and without, and see if you can detect image degradation with an enlargement or loupe.

Leigh
29-May-2019, 07:02
I have 22+ LF lenses in-shutter, most mounted on lensboards.

Every one has had a B+W UV filter mounted since the moment I got it.

They're cheap insurance, in the $50 to $100 range. Much cheaper than the lenses.

- Leigh

Bob Salomon
29-May-2019, 07:10
First, there really isn’t such a thing as a “UV-Haze filter.
A UV filter is slightly yellow and reduces or eliminates UV.
A Haze filter is a skylight filter and is slightly, to, very reddish and is used to warm up the image. It also reduces UV but not as well as a UV.
A UV filter is equally useful on B&W as on color photography.
A warming, or skylight filter, is for color and has minimal effect on B+W photographs.

Brass mounted filter from Heliopan, B+W, Rodenstock and others are better then plastic or aluminum mounted filters and are less likely to bind or cross thread.

Dyed in the mass filters are far better then sandwiched filters like Tiffin which are made of two pieces of glass glued together with a colored glue. This type of filter has 4 glass surfaces that must be absolutely flat to minimize having any effect on resolution.
Solid, dyed in the mass glass only has two sides so once ground flat the have the least affect on resolution.

Modern MC filters with a nano coating reduce flare and reflections the most and are the easiest to keep clean as the nano coating repels moisture, dust, etc.

Single coated filters are a bit better the uncharted filters.

Note, B+W makes various grades of filters. So just because they are branded B+W doesn’t guarantee that yo7 great a brass mounted, MC with nano coating.
Same with Rodenstock.

andrewch59
29-May-2019, 07:22
The step-up rings save having to buy filters for the different sized lenses, I guess the previous owner's biggest lens was a 77mm, so he bought filters for it then just used step up rings to fit said filters to his smaller lenses.

Vaughn
29-May-2019, 13:41
I have UV or haze filters on many of my lenses. Right before I click of the shutter, I take them off. They are on there only to keep the lenses clean. They sort of turn my push-on lens caps into screw-ons. I keep the filters clean just in case I forget to take them off. The filter came in handy last week during light rain and/or mist from waterfalls -- I could compose and focus, then remove the slightly wet filter at the last moment.

Also filters can provide some protection if the lens is dropped -- threads on the lens are protected and one might crack the filter instead of the glass of the lens.

Drew Wiley
29-May-2019, 15:48
UV and haze filters can be quite valuable in color photography, but specific choice is dependent on the specific film, color temperature of the scene, distance, altitude etc. I prefer high-quality multi-coated glass filters. In black and white shots we generally either cut or accentuate haze via colored contrast filters instead.

Leigh
29-May-2019, 19:39
Note, B+W makes various grades of filters.Hi Bob,

Could you please identify the various B+W grades available?

I normally use price as a guide if multiple models are available in the type and size I'm looking for.

Thanks.

- Leigh

Kiwi7475
29-May-2019, 19:49
If you want to choose based on actual test measurements, read this:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

The results are not always intuitive if you think more $ = better filter.

For me it’s the bible on UV filters and they also have another review for Polarizing filters. Very much worth reading.

Two23
29-May-2019, 21:01
I don't think UV filters do anything if you aren't photo'ing at high altitude. I don't even own one. I do use polarizers, mostly on my Nikon equipment. I only use filters when I think it will help the image, so I do use ND filters some, and colored filters for b&w. As for "protection," filters don't really protect at all. The ONLY time I had a lens coating/front element was when a filter broke and the sharp edges destroyed the front element. This has happened to two other people I personally know. Filters are very weak and break. I use the lens cap when not actually taking a photo. I use lens hoods on all my Nikon gear. After over 30 years of outdoor shooting in often extreme conditions, the lens scratched lens I've had was because of a filter.


Kent in SD

Two23
29-May-2019, 21:04
1.The filter came in handy last week during light rain and/or mist from waterfalls -- I could compose and focus, then remove the slightly wet filter at the last moment.

2.Also filters can provide some protection if the lens is dropped -- threads on the lens are protected and one might crack the filter instead of the glass of the lens.


1. This is the only time I use a filter to protect--there is fine grit in the spray from many waterfalls. I'm generally using a polarizer anyway.

2, NO!!!! Drop the lens and the flimsy glass filter breaks. Nothing scratches glass like broken glass. It happened to me, and it's happened to two of my friends. Lens cap is designed to absorb some shock and those do NOT shatter and scratch lenses.


Kent in SD

Vaughn
30-May-2019, 06:29
2) True, lens caps are much better protection for both threads and glass, but you can't see through a lens cap. Generally the cap does not come off until the lens is on the camera.

A friend dropped my 72mm Hoya red filter recently -- it bounced down the rocks and the glass separated from the metal rim before taking the last 6 foot plunge off the rocks and onto the pavement. I put it back together and it is still usable. You never know...

Larry Gebhardt
30-May-2019, 17:48
The lenses also all had a step up ring to 77mm for some reason. (Any guesses as to why 77mm? The guy who sold me the lenses was selling it for his father and didn't know why.)

I put step up rings on my lenses so they all take the same sized filters. The previous owner probably had 77mm filters and wanted to use them on all his lenses. I find 67mm filters a better size for the LF lenses I own, but if I was sharing filters with some SLR lenses I'd consider 77mm. One other advantage is they act as a very crude lens shade, especially if you have a few stacked to get to the final size.

Bernice Loui
30-May-2019, 18:45
IMO, better to have a lens protector or UV filter for any lens that can be subjected to physical abuse. Trade off between serious to fatal lens damage -vs- minor to nil image degradation. Every non-LF lens use has a UV filter or Lens protector as small format camera lenses are subject to unpredictable events.. Much the same applies to view camera lenses that are used with field cameras that can experience unexpected physical trauma.

191861


Bernice

Drew Wiley
30-May-2019, 19:08
Does anyone here shoot color film? If so, this is an important subject. And mere generic comparisons, like that "lenstip" one, are apt to be misleading in certain respects, because they don't tell you a damn thing about the relation between specific filters and specific types of film under specific conditions. If you just want general lens protection from the elements, that's a slightly different topic. Some color films are fairly sensitive to UV and color temperature issues, and you want the correct filter for the situation, not just any filter. Unfortunately, it can take a selection of filters and a degree of actual personal testing to get to the truth sometimes.

Bob Salomon
30-May-2019, 21:43
Does anyone here shoot color film? If so, this is an important subject. And mere generic comparisons, like that "lenstip" one, are apt to be misleading in certain respects, because they don't tell you a damn thing about the relation between specific filters and specific types of film under specific conditions. If you just want general lens protection from the elements, that's a slightly different topic. Some color films are fairly sensitive to UV and color temperature issues, and you want the correct filter for the situation, not just any filter. Unfortunately, it can take a selection of filters and a degree of actual personal testing to get to the truth sometimes.

Go to Heliopan.de and download their filter histogram, it will tell you the proper filter under any lighting conditio; for any color film

HMG
31-May-2019, 06:20
If you want to choose based on actual test measurements, read this:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

The results are not always intuitive if you think more $ = better filter.

For me it’s the bible on UV filters and they also have another review for Polarizing filters. Very much worth reading.


I would caution that the online article was written in 2009 and was reprinted from a 2007 article. With the penchant for some manufacturers to cheapen their products, I'd be careful about applying specific test result on today's filters.

Kiwi7475
31-May-2019, 16:48
I would caution that the online article was written in 2009 and was reprinted from a 2007 article. With the penchant for some manufacturers to cheapen their products, I'd be careful about applying specific test result on today's filters.

Unless there are newer measurements somewhere, I’d still follow this rather than a simple more $ is better approach.
Do you have any specific information about some of these companies in particular or is it just a generic concern?

HMG
31-May-2019, 17:06
Unless there are newer measurements somewhere, I’d still follow this rather than a simple more $ is better approach.
Do you have any specific information about some of these companies in particular or is it just a generic concern?

No specific information. Just a caution that things may have changed since those tests were done.

Greg
31-May-2019, 17:20
All my FX and MF lenses have UV or similar filters in them. Three times have saved them from "bruising" of the front element. For all of my LF and ULF lenses have never attached a filter to the front of any of them, and this going back to the 1970s. Lens caps both front and rear meticulously always used. Never experienced the slightest incident with the front elements on any of these lenses.

Drew Wiley
31-May-2019, 17:33
Thanks, Bob. Most of the serious filter companies offer something similar in terms of guidelines. The old Kodak Wratten guides were excellent in terms of spectrograms, transmission values etc. But I still strongly believe one still has to go beyond basic information and do some testing of their own based on situations they are likely to encounter. But I'm more fussy about hue rendition than most photographers; and decades of high altitude photography gives me an appreciation that even that category of work contains variables. Someone might think 6000 ft equates to high altitude; but to my manner of thinking, that's way down, still in the pollen and haze zone. Up at timberline it has a different connotation. And way up in the Andes or Himalayas, something even more so. So owning just one choice of UV filter doesn't necessarily solve the problem, even if you're only using one kind of film. But I'm thinking of filtration per se.
I don't like filters merely for protection because any additional element is likely to have at least some optical effect. For something like a Nikon lens, I keep a lens hood attached; that prevents accidents. When I use a view camera, some kind of bellows shade etc does the trick, even if it's raining. When not in use, lenses have their caps on and are well wrapped.

Bob Salomon
31-May-2019, 17:38
Thanks, Bob. Most of the serious filter companies offer something similar in terms of guidelines. The old Kodak Wratten guides were excellent in terms of spectrograms, transmission values etc. But I still strongly believe one still has to go beyond basic information and do some testing of their own based on situations they are likely to encounter. But I'm more fussy about hue rendition than most photographers; and decades of high altitude photography gives me an appreciation that even that category of work contains variables. Someone might think 6000 ft equates to high altitude; but to my manner of thinking, that's way down, still in the pollen and haze zone. Up at timberline it has a different connotation. And way up in the Andes or Himalayas, something even more so. So owning just one choice of UV filter doesn't necessarily solve the problem, even if you're only using one kind of film.
Heliopan, B+W, Rollei and most of the other European filters for warming and cooling filters use the decamired system which is additive. 2 KR 1.5 Skylight filters make a KR3.

Kodak used the Wratten system which is not additive.

A bit of reading on the decamired system and the mired value of films and light makes the decamired system much more versatile!

Bob Salomon
31-May-2019, 17:47
No specific information. Just a caution that things may have changed since those tests were done.

A big problem with this test is that many of the brands tested were private label brands, for instance, Hama. Hama could buy from several different companies and use the same name on all of them. Plus they could change suppliers at any time.

Also there are several companies that have been making filters since this test was done that are not included. Plus not all of the filters tested were the latest versions when they were tested.

For instance, for many years Heliopan sold Kaësmann polarizers and continued to sell them after Dr. Kaësmann died. But they stopped selling them once Schneider bought the Kaësmann company.

Drew Wiley
31-May-2019, 17:57
Yes, Bob. I find myself selecting from both systems to achieve the exact shade I want. Some sky filters are more magenta, some more salmon color; some 81A's basically yellow, and some more amber. But I never stack filters.

manfrominternet
1-Jun-2019, 00:04
I'm primarily shooting with Fuji Velvia/Provia and Kodak Ektar 100.

That said, should I get one of these UV filters? (Besides the nano coating, what's the difference between these two filters? Is one better than the other?)

1.) B+W XS-Pro UV Haze MRC Nano 010M Filter https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756157-REG/B_W_1066120_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html/mode/edu
2.) B+W UV Haze MRC 010M Filter https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11990-REG/B_W_66070222_58mm_UV_Haze_010.html/mode/edu

OR, should I just get a B+W Rubber Lens Hood and leave out the filters? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11153-REG/B_W_65069607_58mm_Screw_In_Folding_Rubber.html/mode/edu

manfrominternet
5-Jun-2019, 22:16
... crickets...

:/

andrewch59
5-Jun-2019, 23:20
I am not as particular about cleaning filter glass, as the multicoated surfaces of my lenses. My lens surfaces stay in pristine condition while the easily cleaned filter protects against the elements.

abruzzi
6-Jun-2019, 13:29
I'm primarily shooting with Fuji Velvia/Provia and Kodak Ektar 100.

That said, should I get one of these UV filters? (Besides the nano coating, what's the difference between these two filters? Is one better than the other?)

1.) B+W XS-Pro UV Haze MRC Nano 010M Filter https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756157-REG/B_W_1066120_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html/mode/edu
2.) B+W UV Haze MRC 010M Filter https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11990-REG/B_W_66070222_58mm_UV_Haze_010.html/mode/edu

OR, should I just get a B+W Rubber Lens Hood and leave out the filters? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11153-REG/B_W_65069607_58mm_Screw_In_Folding_Rubber.html/mode/edu

It seems the glass is the same--MRC is "multi resistant coated", 010M I assume is the glass/tint spec. I don't know if it is just a catalog number, or if there is anything meaningful in it. XS-Pro is their slim mount (F-Pro is their standard mount, though that not listed in the second link).

"This filter uses our XS-Pro Digital mount which is especially suited for DSLRs with wide angle and zoom lenses. It has a front thread for additional accessories such as lens caps or hoods. All XS-Pro Digital mounts are made of brass and are matte black to prevent reflections."

The also make an even slimmer mount that doesn't have front threads called the "Slim-Line"

manfrominternet
6-Jun-2019, 20:27
Does anyone know if those B+W UV/Haze Nano filters will cause lens flares if I'm out doing night photography?

I'm still not sure whether I should get these B+W UV/Haze filters for protecting my lenses from dust/fingerprints/scratches/my OCD over-cleaning or if I should just use a dedicated lens hood instead.

What do you guys think? Seems like most people here are in favor of using it as cheap insurance.

Will using good UV filters impact my image quality, especially if I'm looking to make large and highly detailed prints?

Vaughn
6-Jun-2019, 21:59
Be aware of night conditions, especially cool damp nights/early mornings with condensation on the glass.

A dedicated lens hood is always nice to have. I have a screw-on metal one on the 210/6.3 for the 5x7, pretty sweet...such hoods could improve a lot of people's negatives more than a range of filters...killer when used in combination.

Drew Wiley
7-Jun-2019, 12:59
Condensation risk is one of the reasons I strongly prefer the micro-smoothness of high-quality glass and multi-coatings. Tiny droplets like to grab a bit of texture, no matter how miniscule. So does rheumatism, as my joints get more "textured" after decades in the cold and wet of the mountains.

LabRat
7-Jun-2019, 19:28
My experience with using brand new B/W and Heliopan multi-coated filters with a Leica R4, was in Gulf Coast Florida, which happened during the time of Hurricane Katrina... Florida wasn't hit directly, but heat and humidity was much higher than normal, and I had a devil of a time keeping the condensation off the filters from being constantly heavily fogged over... Wiping them down just left hard to remove deposits on them, but some other older single coat filters would wipe clean enough to shoot, so better in those adverse conditions... (It was sooo humid, that even the electronic R4 would sometimes fire on its own while just hanging around my neck!!!) It was like shooting in a hot steamy shower... But this is an extreme situation...

But MC filters are good to shoot under very bright or night conditions, esp with longer lenses that have some flat elements inside (that can set up internal reflections)...

Steve K