UV Filter in a very sunny environment. Any suggestions?

[KW Gary M]

I have a UV Filter on both my 18mm-55mm lens and my 55mm to 200mm as I live in Key West with some of the strongest sun in the country. Not knowing any better I bought a cheap 2 for $12 special on eBay and find it is doing more harm than good. Looking for some suggestions on a good UV Filter that won't break the bank. Some brands that have been suggested to me are Tiffin, Cokin, Hoya and Nikon. Anyone have experience with them? Good? Bad? So-So? Any others that are good? Any I should stay away from?

[Alan Gales]

The Cokin and I've heard that the Tiffen are a plastic. Hoya HMC and Nikon are both quality glass filters. B+W and Heliopan are also extremely good quality. B+W is made by Schneider and the Heliopan is made by Zeiss.

As long as you buy a quality filter I doubt you would notice much difference.

[Alan Gales]

To clarify: I don't think you would notice much difference between each of the quality filters.

[Alan Gales]

One more thing. If you are not doing it all ready, the best thing you can do is shade your lens either with a lens shade or at least a hat.

[KW Gary M]

One more thing. If you are not doing it all ready, the best thing you can do is shade your lens either with a lens shade or at least a hat.

Is that the same thing as the rubber lense hood?

[Alan Gales]

Yes, you can use a rubber lens hood, a metal lens hood or a compendium shade. A compendium shade is an adjustable lens hood for using with various focal length lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

"and the Heliopan is made by Zeiss. "

Where did you get this idea? It is totally wrong!

Heliopan is a family owned business outside Munich owned since it's founding after WWII by the Summer family. It is not and has never been part of the Zeiss Trust or any Zeiss company. Nor is it part of Rodenstock.

What it is is the only German filter manufacturer that exclusively only uses glass from Schott which is part of the Zeiss group. Heliopan also only uses brass mounts, except where their weight would be too great, for both their filter rims and their step-up rings and adapter rings.

They use the latest technology in filter coatings from the German optical industry and feature the latest technology in filters like the new High Transmissionn circular polarizers with a filter factor of 2 rather then 2.5 so they opass 2/3rd stop more light to the image plane.

[GPS]

Is that the same thing as the rubber lense hood?

No. A rubber lens hood is usually made for small of medium format cameras lenses. On LF lenses their effect is rather pitiful. No screw on lens shades (especially round ones) are made specifically for LF lenses, for many good reasons.
But a lens shade is not really a substitute for a UV filter - it doesn't reduce the UV light at all, just the general amount of light falling on the lens surface.
And I would even question the use of UV filter on your lens unless you take pics on mountains - and that regardless of the amount of sun that heats you up in Key West...

[Gem Singer]

Why hasn't anyone noticed that this nice realtor from Key West, Fla, is asking about a UV filter for the zoom lenses on his Nikon D3100 digital camera?

He is obviously posting on the wrong forum, and nobody has taken the time to explain to him that this is a forum devoted to large format photography.

In another post, he introduced himself and told us that he took a course in digital photography and is interested in learning to use his digicam.

[KW Gary M]

Why hasn't anyone noticed that this nice realtor from Key West, Fla, is asking about a UV filter for the zoom lenses on his Nikon D3100 digital camera?

He is obviously posting on the wrong forum, and nobody has taken the time to explain to him that this is a forum devoted to large format photography.

In another post, he introduced himself and told us that he took a course in digital photography and is interested in learning to use his digicam.

Now this makes sense. I found a link to this forum when looking for UV Filters. I just "Googled" UV Filter for Nikon D3100 and one of the links was this forum. I was reading a lot of the topics thinking this doesn't sound like anything I hear in class but I just figured it was me being a beginner.

Oh well, my mistake. I spent a little time in a forum that seems to be filled with nice people and I learned a few things.

Thanks,
Gary

[GPS]

Why hasn't anyone noticed that this nice realtor from Key West, Fla, is asking about a UV filter for the zoom lenses on his Nikon D3100 digital camera?

He is obviously posting on the wrong forum, and nobody has taken the time to explain to him that this is a forum devoted to large format photography.

In another post, he introduced himself and told us that he took a course in digital photography and is interested in learning to use his digicam.

:) :)

[Alan Gales]

"and the Heliopan is made by Zeiss. "

Where did you get this idea? It is totally wrong!

Heliopan is a family owned business outside Munich owned since it's founding after WWII by the Summer family. It is not and has never been part of the Zeiss Trust or any Zeiss company. Nor is it part of Rodenstock.

What it is is the only German filter manufacturer that exclusively only uses glass from Schott which is part of the Zeiss group. Heliopan also only uses brass mounts, except where their weight would be too great, for both their filter rims and their step-up rings and adapter rings.

They use the latest technology in filter coatings from the German optical industry and feature the latest technology in filters like the new High Transmissionn circular polarizers with a filter factor of 2 rather then 2.5 so they opass 2/3rd stop more light to the image plane.

Thanks Bob!

When I first got into photography I shot 35mm like a lot of people. My camera of choice was a Contax 139. When I bought filters for my Zeiss lenses the salesman at the top "Pro" camera store here in St. Louis recommended buying the Contax filters which were made by Heliopan which was owned by Zeiss.

Sorry for my mistake. I believed that all these years and never heard different.

It's not the only time that I received misinformation from camera store sales people! :eek:

[Two23]

I don't use UV filters on my NIkon DSLR gear at all, except for polarizers and an occassional ND grad. I don't think UV filters do anything and have had a number of shots ruined by the filter introducing flare and ghosting.


Kent in SD

[Greg Lockrey]

I don't use UV filters on my NIkon DSLR gear at all, except for polarizers and an occassional ND grad. I don't think UV filters do anything and have had a number of shots ruined by the filter introducing flare and ghosting.


Kent in SD

I was going to say I use polarizers only on my digital camera's as that is the only filter not to be replicated in Photoshop. Any glass that is in front of the lens will filter out UV.

Plus just because a guy asks a question about his DSLR shouldn't mean that we can't share our expertise. He joined our little group hoping to learn something about photography. What "Large Format Photography Forum" means to him might not be the same as it means to us. As a case in point the name of my first photo-lab was "The Optimum Aperture". I got more calls from companies that needed orifices for furnaces than I did from photographers that needed custom printing.

[tgtaylor]

Now this makes sense. I found a link to this forum when looking for UV Filters. I just "Googled" UV Filter for Nikon D3100 and one of the links was this forum. I was reading a lot of the topics thinking this doesn't sound like anything I hear in class but I just figured it was me being a beginner.

Oh well, my mistake. I spent a little time in a forum that seems to be filled with nice people and I learned a few things.

Thanks,
Gary

Actually Gary you didn't make much of a mistake. Although ostensibly dedicated to the large format camera, it has lately become a forum for the small format digital shooter, which many members here are, to bash the view camera, film, and the darkroom at every opportunity. Recently, for example, a well respected forum moderator was making the claim that a 35mm DSLR and lens-baby could execute all the movements that the view camera (a camera with full movements of both standards) can. So no, you didn't make a mistake at all.

BTW, a UV filter helps in cutting thru some of the haze in the distance.

Thomas

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob!

When I first got into photography I shot 35mm like a lot of people. My camera of choice was a Contax 139. When I bought filters for my Zeiss lenses the salesman at the top "Pro" camera store here in St. Louis recommended buying the Contax filters which were made by Heliopan which was owned by Zeiss.

Sorry for my mistake. I believed that all these years and never heard different.

It's not the only time that I received misinformation from camera store sales people! :eek:

Actually you received more wrong info. Heliopan did make the filters for Zeiss Ikon. That would have been the filters for the Contarex, Contaflex, Ikarex, etc. But when Yashica bought the rights to the Contax name and made the SLR and P&S cameras in Japan Heliopan no longer was involved, in any way, with the Contax branded filters which were then made in Japan - except for the Softar. All Heliopan manufacturing is in Germany only.

However, several companies did sell Zeiss Softar filters at that time. Hasselblad in Hasselblad bayonet mounts; Rollei in Rollei bayonet mounts, Contax/Yashica in sizes that they offered their lenses in; Heliopan in all screw-in sizes from 49 to 105mm but no bayonet types and B+W in most of the same sizes as Heliopan.
The commonality between all of these Softars was that Carl Zeiss installed the Softar blanks in mounts supplied by the companies above. But at no time did Heliopan make filters of any type, including Softars, for Contax Yashica. They did, however, make filters that were sold under the Rollei name up until Rollei was sold to the owner of Schneider from the liquidator after B+W had been sold to the same owner by the Trustees of the B+W company. When that happened Heliopan stopped making Rollei branded filters.

[Alan Gales]

No. A rubber lens hood is usually made for small of medium format cameras lenses. On LF lenses their effect is rather pitiful. No screw on lens shades (especially round ones) are made specifically for LF lenses, for many good reasons.
But a lens shade is not really a substitute for a UV filter - it doesn't reduce the UV light at all, just the general amount of light falling on the lens surface.
And I would even question the use of UV filter on your lens unless you take pics on mountains - and that regardless of the amount of sun that heats you up in Key West...

I noticed that the OP said that he was using an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm so I assumed he was using a digital camera. Most members here including myself own digital cameras in addition to their large format cameras. He also appeared to be a "newbie" so I asked if he was shading his lens.

Hopefully all us good people on here will get him interested and he will purchase a large format camera in the future! :)

[Alan Gales]

Actually you received more wrong info. Heliopan did make the filters for Zeiss Ikon. That would have been the filters for the Contarex, Contaflex, Ikarex, etc. But when Yashica bought the rights to the Contax name and made the SLR and P&S cameras in Japan Heliopan no longer was involved, in any way, with the Contax branded filters which were then made in Japan - except for the Softar. All Heliopan manufacturing is in Germany only.

However, several companies did sell Zeiss Softar filters at that time. Hasselblad in Hasselblad bayonet mounts; Rollei in Rollei bayonet mounts, Contax/Yashica in sizes that they offered their lenses in; Heliopan in all screw-in sizes from 49 to 105mm but no bayonet types and B+W in most of the same sizes as Heliopan.
The commonality between all of these Softars was that Carl Zeiss installed the Softar blanks in mounts supplied by the companies above. But at no time did Heliopan make filters of any type, including Softars, for Contax Yashica. They did, however, make filters that were sold under the Rollei name up until Rollei was sold to the owner of Schneider from the liquidator after B+W had been sold to the same owner by the Trustees of the B+W company. When that happened Heliopan stopped making Rollei branded filters.

Thanks Bob! As usual you are a wealth of information!!!

[KW Gary M]

Actually Gary you didn't make much of a mistake. Although ostensibly dedicated to the large format camera, it has lately become a forum for the small format digital shooter, which many members here are, to bash the view camera, film, and the darkroom at every opportunity. Recently, for example, a well respected forum moderator was making the claim that a 35mm DSLR and lens-baby could execute all the movements that the view camera (a camera with full movements of both standards) can. So no, you didn't make a mistake at all.

BTW, a UV filter helps in cutting thru some of the haze in the distance.

Thomas

My thinking is I learned a few tips already so my time was not wasted at all. Seems there are some nice people in here willing to offer help. I'm willing to listen.

[Greg Miller]

I personally haven't used a UV filter in many years. I never noticed a difference, and nobody else has ever commented either.

If you still feel inclined to buy one, borrow a friend's filter. Take 2 identical photos - one with the filter and another without. If you can tell a difference, and you think the difference is a positive one, then go ahead and purchase one.

[Greg Lockrey]

I personally haven't used a UV filter in many years. I never noticed a difference, and nobody else has ever commented either.

If you still feel inclined to buy one, borrow a friend's filter. Take 2 identical photos - one with the filter and another without. If you can tell a difference, and you think the difference is a positive one, then go ahead and purchase one.

If you look real close on a B&W print you'll see it (you'll have to be a .01%'r :) ) The man who owned the camera store I worked at part time in South Carolina while I was in the Navy back in the '70's said that UV was for B&W and Skylight was for color. I really doubt that with digital and how most newbies shoot auto color balance you'd see it.

[Frank Petronio]

Camera shops make a nice margin on accessories, most of which are unnecessary or detrimental. However the proper Nikon OEM lenshade for those kit lenses is a really good idea. I suggest checking the Nikon website and getting the recommended ones since they are the correct depth for the focal length.

Any camera, digital, film, big or small benefits from a properly shaded lens. It was probably flare that caused you to think you wanted an UV filter....

[Bob Salomon]

Camera shops make a nice margin on accessories, most of which are unnecessary or detrimental. However the proper Nikon OEM lenshade for those kit lenses is a really good idea. I suggest checking the Nikon website and getting the recommended ones since they are the correct depth for the focal length.

Any camera, digital, film, big or small benefits from a properly shaded lens. It was probably flare that caused you to think you wanted an UV filter....

In theory, but not in fact.

"18mm-55mm lens and my 55mm to 200mm "
If the lens shade for the 18 to 55 does not vignette at the 18mm setting then it is too short for the 55mm focal length to be truly effective. It is the proper depth and width for the 55 then it will vignette at wider focal lengths.

Same with the 55 to 200mm.

[Frank Petronio]

Well... at least he won't get one too long... rooms do make it impossible ;-p

[Frank Petronio]

Zooms not rooms. On my phone in airport Hell.

[Greg Miller]

If you look real close on a B&W print you'll see it (you'll have to be a .01%'r :) ) The man who owned the camera store I worked at part time in South Carolina while I was in the Navy back in the '70's said that UV was for B&W and Skylight was for color. I really doubt that with digital and how most newbies shoot auto color balance you'd see it.

I'd be interested in seeing a double blind study. My guess is nobody would be able to reliably and consistently tell without a direct A/B comparison. And any benefit would be offset by other negative effects such as lens flare.

Besides, digital cameras tend to be pretty insensitive to UV light, and I believe that most modern films are as well.

[Bob Salomon]

I'd be interested in seeing a double blind study. My guess is nobody would be able to reliably and consistently tell without a direct A/B comparison. And any benefit would be offset by other negative effects such as lens flare.

Besides, digital cameras tend to be pretty insensitive to UV light, and I believe that most modern films are as well.

How effective a UV filter will be will depend on the amount of UV present. If you shoot at higher altitudes, like the Andirondacks or the Catskills in winter with snow cover the UV will be much more effective at cutting the UV then it will be if you are shooting a close-up of a rose at 2 PM on a sunny day. But then the filter will be better with strong overcast when shooting that rose.

As for flare, that depends on how well the filter is coated, if at all. Some filters have no coatings. Some have a basic coating on one or both sides, some are MC on one side only, others on both sides. The quality of the MC vary widely, depending on the filter company. Heliopan SH-PMC multicoatings allow over 99.4% of the light that strikes the surface of the filter to pass through to the image plane. Other brands will pass less, down to close to 94%. That is the flare that you are referring to.

Both film and digital are still affected by UV radiation. For digital the cleanest, sharpest images with the greatest color seperation and the cleanest colors are acquired with a filter. Specifically the Digital filter from Heliopan. This cuts both UV and IR from reaching the sensor but it will only work with digital, will not work with videao or film and will not work with a lens wider then about 24mm.

[GPS]

...
As for flare, that depends on how well the filter is coated, if at all. Some filters have no coatings. Some have a basic coating on one or both sides, some are MC on one side only, others on both sides. The quality of the MC vary widely, depending on the filter company. Heliopan SH-PMC multicoatings allow over 99.4% of the light that strikes the surface of the filter to pass through to the image plane. Other brands will pass less, down to close to 94%. That is the flare that you are referring to.

...

Just to be more precise - the flare added by a UV filter is not there because the filter allows the light to pass through it but because its surface changes its path so that it can cause the flare, entering the lens. Otherwise a no filter at all (theoretically a filter that would let pass 100% of light) would mean the biggest flare, which obviously is not the case. Or, in other words, if a filter causes flare it's because at some angles the light is bent by the filter in a way that would not occur if the filter were not present - not just because the filter lets the light pass.

[Greg Lockrey]

I'd be interested in seeing a double blind study. My guess is nobody would be able to reliably and consistently tell without a direct A/B comparison. And any benefit would be offset by other negative effects such as lens flare.

Besides, digital cameras tend to be pretty insensitive to UV light, and I believe that most modern films are as well.

100% agreed on all points. My recommendation to Gary would be get a circular polarizer and leave it on his digital camera and then get to learn how to use it's effects especially in sunny Florida and by understanding how he can point that little dot on the filter toward the sun he can maximize the effect and moving it to 90 degree will minimize it. I would like to see the manufactures have that dot reflect a brighter light back to the camera user so he can see if the filter is in fact lined up with the sun. I sometimes have a tough time getting a good read with the viewfinder in bright light. Could be my old eyes.... A little trick I use is I glued a toothpick on the shade (I like rubber ones that rotate with the filter) 1/8" directly over the dot and when I get the shadow from the sun hit directly on the dot I know I'm dead nuts in alignment.

[Bob Salomon]

Just to be more precise - the flare added by a UV filter is not there because the filter allows the light to pass through it but because its surface changes its path so that it can cause the flare, entering the lens. Otherwise a no filter at all (theoretically a filter that would let pass 100% of light) would mean the biggest flare, which obviously is not the case. Or, in other words, if a filter causes flare it's because at some angles the light is bent by the filter in a way that would not occur if the filter were not present - not just because the filter lets the light pass.

That was the point. The Heliopan SH-PMC coating has less stray light from the glass to air surfaces then any other coating on any other filter. Therfore no flare. A coated (not MC) lens will create more flare then you will get from a SH-PMC coated filter from the glass to air surfaces.

[GPS]

I'd be interested in seeing a double blind study. My guess is nobody would be able to reliably and consistently tell without a direct A/B comparison. And any benefit would be offset by other negative effects such as lens flare.

Besides, digital cameras tend to be pretty insensitive to UV light, and I believe that most modern films are as well.



...

As for flare, that depends on how well the filter is coated, if at all. Some filters have no coatings. Some have a basic coating on one or both sides, some are MC on one side only, others on both sides. The quality of the MC vary widely, depending on the filter company. Heliopan SH-PMC multicoatings allow over 99.4% of the light that strikes the surface of the filter to pass through to the image plane. Other brands will pass less, down to close to 94%. That is the flare that you are referring to.

...

Now I know where we don't meet, Bob.
While Greg was speaking about lens flare (regardless of if he meant that or filter flare), you speak about filter flare in your answer to him. And me about lens flare.
So to be more precise, these are two different flare sources and each of them must be cured by different means! The lens flare by a lens shade, the filter flare by its coatings. So we both have it right, just speaking about different flares...:)

[Greg Miller]

How effective a UV filter will be will depend on the amount of UV present. If you shoot at higher altitudes, like the Andirondacks or the Catskills in winter with snow cover the UV will be much more effective at cutting the UV then it will be if you are shooting a close-up of a rose at 2 PM on a sunny day. But then the filter will be better with strong overcast when shooting that rose.

As for flare, that depends on how well the filter is coated, if at all. Some filters have no coatings. Some have a basic coating on one or both sides, some are MC on one side only, others on both sides. The quality of the MC vary widely, depending on the filter company. Heliopan SH-PMC multicoatings allow over 99.4% of the light that strikes the surface of the filter to pass through to the image plane. Other brands will pass less, down to close to 94%. That is the flare that you are referring to.

Both film and digital are still affected by UV radiation. For digital the cleanest, sharpest images with the greatest color seperation and the cleanest colors are acquired with a filter. Specifically the Digital filter from Heliopan. This cuts both UV and IR from reaching the sensor but it will only work with digital, will not work with videao or film and will not work with a lens wider then about 24mm.

Respectfully, I'd still like to see a double blind test to see if in practice anybody could tell if a UV filter was used or not. When I am at higher elevation in the Catskills or Adirondacks this winter with snow cover, I will shoot identical photos with and without a UV filter (A Nikon L37c - not a Heliopan Digital but not exactly a dog either). I'll post samples to see if anybody can see a difference even with a direct A/B comparison.

I know specifically Nikon already has UV an IR filters in front of their digital sensors. And the UV sensitivity is already proven to be significantly less than with film. I'm curious about why an external UV filter would add benefits beyond what the Nikon engineers could accomplish (I'm assuming they would optimize UV transmission to the sensor). Plus, optical glass, such as that use din lenses, itself does not pass very much UV light.

BTW, I have a B&W 67mm UV filter for sale if anyone wants one.

[Greg Miller]

Now I know where we don't meet, Bob.
While Greg was speaking about lens flare (regardless of if he meant that or filter flare), you speak about filter flare in your answer to him. And me about lens flare.
So to be more precise, these are two different flare sources and each of them must be cured by different means! The lens flare by a lens shade, the filter flare by its coatings. So we both have it right, just speaking about different flares...:)

My bad. I should have said flare caused by a filter.

[GPS]

Respectfully, I'd still like to see a double blind test to see if in practice anybody could tell if a UV filter was used or not. When I am at higher elevation in the Catskills or Adirondacks this winter with snow cover, I will shoot identical photos with and without a UV filter (A Nikon L37c - not a Heliopan Digital but not exactly a dog either). I'll post samples to see if anybody can see a difference even with a direct A/B comparison.

...

I agree with you, certainly for Catskills (when I took pictures there I have never had a problem with exposure - but then, never did a comparison either.) Personally I'm inclined to believe that modern films take care of the UV well up to 2000 m if not more as I never needed to correct exposures in those elevations, even with snow.