To use a UV-Haze Filter or not use a UV-Haze Filter, that is the question...

[manfrominternet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you want to choose based on actual test measurements, read this:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-articl...ters_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.