surf monkey wrote:
dcains wrote:
Doesn't the sensor's filter block UV? I'd like to see some examples of how any UV filter improves an image taken with a digital camera.

If the UV has no purpose, wouldn't it be better to get a clear filter?

Exactly, the UV serves no purpose other than protection. Gave away my UV filters long ago, In my bag I have a CirPol and ND when needed, the Nikon clear filter stays on the rest of the time.

Nicholas
www.copperhillimages.com

Nickle S. wrote:
surf monkey wrote:
dcains wrote:
Doesn't the sensor's filter block UV? I'd like to see some examples of how any UV filter improves an image taken with a digital camera.

If the UV has no purpose, wouldn't it be better to get a clear filter?

Exactly, the UV serves no purpose other than protection. Gave away my UV filters long ago, In my bag I have a CirPol and ND when needed, the Nikon clear filter stays on the rest of the time.

Nicholas
www.copperhillimages.com

I definitely get good use out of my CirPol and NDs. The UV not so much.
Any stories from folks who couldn't live without one or how it saved there equipment?

Your samples with the filter are not just darker, but less sharp.

When I bought my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I attached a cheap UV $20 filter (Specially to protect the lens from getting dust). Not just images were darker, but less sharp.

Then I got the B+W 77mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC). A little expensive, but this filter is *crystal* clear, and worth to have it permanently attached to the 17-55 lens. Later I bought the same brand B&W Circular Polarizer. The advantage is that since both filters are 77mm, I can use them in my 70-200 f/2.8.

surf monkey wrote:
dcains wrote:
Doesn't the sensor's filter block UV? I'd like to see some examples of how any UV filter improves an image taken with a digital camera.

You're probably right.
I need to do a test. Frankly, I haven't used a UV filter in awhile. Whether there's a benefit or not, usually I just can't be bothered.

It is a good idea to get those filters, not because of the UV, but because the protect the lens from dust and scratches.

RobsonF wrote:
Yep. After doing this test I've parked the UV filter in my bag for use in extreme situations only. I was thinking of maybe trying out some higher-quality UV filters but the point about buying insurance instead makes a lot of sense.

The filter I used, incidentally, is made by Fidelity Electronics. Just a basic, $20, 77mm UV filter.

Try the B+W Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC), instead of insurance.

RobsonF wrote:
Shutter speed 1/60 of a second to account for any cycling in the compact fluorescent lights in my house.

Not trying to hijack your thread but just curious if an electrical engineer out there can enlighten us. I get that in north America we have 60 HZ, alternating current electricity, which as I understand it means that 60 times a second the flow of current reverses. As that happens the filaments in lights are energized from an "off" state, ramp up to full power and therefor full resistance and light output (volume and color), and then ramp down to the "off" state again. So if you visualize a continuous sine wave with 1/60th of a second between peaks or valleys, then overlay a 1/60th of a second exposure, it can fall anywhere along the cycle, but should, in theory encompass a full cycle. Therefor it would be identical to any other 1/60th slice of the cycle.

Is this assumption correct?

Now my real question here is - how accurate is the 60 Hz cycle, and how accurate is the 1/60th second shutter actuation?

The reason I ask is that if the 60 Hz is +/- 1 Hz and the shutter is say +/- 2%, you could have a 1/59th second exposure of a 1/61 cycle, which is then not necessarily equal to another 1/60th shot due to where it falls in the cycle.

All that to say to get a real certain full cycle would you want to be at say 1/50th or so? Or can you count on a full cycle at 1/60th?

I hate it that I want to know this stuff. Sorry.

jlandaue wrote:
RobsonF wrote:
Yep. After doing this test I've parked the UV filter in my bag for use in extreme situations only. I was thinking of maybe trying out some higher-quality UV filters but the point about buying insurance instead makes a lot of sense.

The filter I used, incidentally, is made by Fidelity Electronics. Just a basic, $20, 77mm UV filter.

Try the B+W Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC), instead of insurance.

I like the B+W filters as well. Much easier to keep clean than those from Marumi and Hoya filters.

Wow, I had no idea this topic was so heated. I don’t care for UV specified filters since I believe any filter cuts UV to some degree. Anyway, I prefer and use the B+W MRC Nano XP-Pro for outdoors (supposedly clear), and the Tiffen Digital HT Ultra Clear multi-coat for indoors. Like some, I prefer the front element to have some sort of protection vs. not. Having worked with mil-spec optics in the Army I know just how delicate the frontal glass can be with acids, scratches, etc.

I also have extended warranties with accidental damage coverage for my lens and body. I use to have a personal effects policy but that's more useful for theft when compared to damage warranties. Yes I know, it covers damage, but just try and file a claim for damage, and you'll see just what a pain in the ass it can really be. They're great if that's all you can get and frankly, it’s nice to have both.

i shot a sequence of tests with my Fuji IS-Pro, a camera designed for, among other things, UV photography and a couple of modern zoom lenses. with or without UV filter makes no detectable difference because the lens glass itself and modern lens coatings are almost opaque to UV, not just the hot mirror filter on a sensor. even with film, a zoom lens will effectively block all UV light. if you want to actually shoot in UV with something like my IS-Pro that is sensitive to near UV, you both need to shoot a lens with few elements because optical glass is a poor transmitter of near UV light and also have to remove the coatings to get usable exposure times.

Herb...

surf monkey wrote:
I definitely get good use out of my CirPol and NDs. The UV not so much.
Any stories from folks who couldn't live without one or how it saved there equipment?

off isn't really off with filament lamps. it still puts out a very large percentage of full brightness, close enough that even at high shutter speeds, you aren't going to notice the difference. with FL lamps, off isn't totally off either but there is a large color shift.

Herb....

dwerther wrote:
As that happens the filaments in lights are energized from an "off" state, ramp up to full power and therefor full resistance and light output (volume and color), and then ramp down to the "off" state again.

Definite loss of contrast at all focal lengths with the cheap filter (what OP terms darker).

Seems to be a bit more loss of resolution at longer focal lengths with the cheap filter.

Glenn

There is a difference between 'cheap' and 'poor'........ KOOD filters are cheap but not poor quality. I tried a pro spec HOYA on my 85mm f1.8, then the KOOD equivalent during a studio shoot. If there was a difference I couldn't see it. There was a 50% price difference however.....

EDIT: to make it clear.....I had no filter on the lens then decided to try the above two......no difference in any of the images regarding clarity etc during the whole shoot.

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I felt that the most appropriate.

I've thought long and hard about filters. But then, a hike I took two weeks ago settled the question for me:

No idea what caused this, but this happened while my OM-D plus new Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro were in the case with the front cover on. No other damage to anything but the filter.

(I use only Hoya multicoated filters - $11 at B&H for my 46mm ones. I've never been bothered by these filters in either my limited tests or in my field experience, though I will usually remove it if the sun is in my landscapes)

Now, I write this as I'm contemplating dropping filters from cheap lenses - but that'll be a different thread.