Gear Talk > Lenses

UV or clear protection filter?

(1/3) > >>

Marsu42:
In my recent unintentional trivia series "I'm clueless, please help me out" I've stumbled across another question: I thought using uv filters were just a rip-off for old school amateurs who didn't know that a digital sensor isn't sensitive to uv - or for people who find a uv filter that is cheaper than a comparable clear filter.

My web research supports this, but I was told that just because it's in the Internet it isn't necessarily correct... and I've recently come across one application that might still prove a need for an uv filter except for protection or lens sealing:

* Vari-nd filters or two stacked polarizers - in contrast to "real" dark glass nd filters, they let uv pass and though the sensor is not very sensitive to uv, it still might make a difference with long exposures.

Is this correct? Are there any other reasons to get an uv filter over clear glass?

TexPhoto:
I am one of those live free and don't use any filter when you don't need one people. (I protect my lens with a lens cap)  But i think even the UV filter or death people will tell you not to stack 2 filters if you can avoid it.  Light bounces around between the 2 parallel filters and other problems.

Zv:
The best quality filter available was a kenko zeta UV filter so I bought that. The glass is decent and I can't tell the difference with it on or off. I use it to weather seal my L glass. If the situation doesn't require it I'll shoot without it. A b+w clear filter would have been more expensive and is harder to find here in Japan. It's all Kenko filters here. I believe they are the same as Hoya. But yeah, no real reason for UV filters.

I also heard that using a UV filter for night landscapes is a bad idea. Forgot how and why. I guess you need as much light rays as possible in the dark and UV provides some form of illumination? Is that what gives the deep blue hue at blue hour?

neuroanatomist:
No difference between clear and UV for a dSLR.  Well...I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak for the 7D and 5DII that I empirically tested with both short- and long-wave UV light sources - both were insensitive to UV.

TrumpetPower!:

--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on February 16, 2013, 11:20:06 AM ---No difference between clear and UV for a dSLR.  Well...I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak for the 7D and 5DII that I empirically tested with both short- and long-wave UV light sources - both were insensitive to UV.

--- End quote ---

Out of curiosity, how did you perform your test?

...and...again, out of curiosity, are there any dSLRs that are sensitive to UV? I'm thinking that, if so, there might be interesting applications for, for example, getting a filter that blocks all but UV. I understand that there are flowers that are much more interesting in the UV spectrum than the visible spectrum....

In a similar vein, I'm also somewhat surprised that IR-blocking filters haven't become popular for DSLRs. Blown red channels when shooting certain subjects at least used to be a common problem, and that was because the cameras had some sensitivity to IR. Modern cameras have better IR-blocking filters built into the sensor, but for a time there, IR contamination was at least as big a problem for digital shooters as UV contamination ever was for film.

Cheers,

b&

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version