UV protectors on lenses

In article <1128275926.160808.271310 DeleteThis @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Bala Variyam <bala.variyam DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
> from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
> protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
> quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
> no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
> opinion?

I've never used 'em. It's just something else in front of the lens to
muck up the image. Never smashed a lens into something either in almost
40 years of photography.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

"Bala Variyam" <bala.variyam RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128275926.160808.271310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
> from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
> protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
> quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
> no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
> opinion?
>
> Thanks,
> Bala
>

It's not a "protector" but a filter that screens out UV rays. If the filter
is a good quality one and undamaged, it should have no visible effect on
your image other than to warm the scene slightly by filtering out some blue.

Doc
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <1128275926.160808.271310.TakeThisOut@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bala Variyam" <bala.variyam.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
> from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
> protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
> quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
> no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
> opinion?
>
> Thanks,
> Bala

Are you using a high quailty multi-coated UV filter with a brass rim?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

Rich wrote:

> 5. Tiffen is trash. They cause reflections, have poor optical
> quality and can drop the incoming light by 1/3-1/2 an f-stop.

I don't believe that the clear filters could possibly be dropping
visible light by 1/3 of an f-stop. A bit under 1/6th of a stop is
likely for an uncoated filter. If you are measuring more then your
light meter may have some UV sensitivity (very possible) and the
filter is doing what a UV filter should do.

The Haze-1 Tiffen filter is more effective at actually blocking
UV than the dyed-in-the-mass glass filters sold by others.
If you actually need to block UV for some reason, it could
be a good choice. Many (most) of the Tiffen filters are made
with two pieces of glass cemented together with the cement dyed
with the Kodak Wratten series of dyes. The old way of making
sandwich filters involved having a gel filter cemented between
two pieces of glass, but I believe that on modern Tiffens it
is usually the optical cement itself which is dyed. The Kodak
Wratten series dyes tend to be the best filters as far as actual
filtering is concerned. Some dyes can be used for gelatin
or adhesive which can't be used in the glass itself.

I understand that Tiffen make a special grade of filter in
Series 9 size (I think) for the motion picture industry which
uses a higher grade optical glass than their usual filters,
but they aren't cheap.

> 8. There is no need nowadays to filter UV light with digitals.

I think that is generally true. Lots of modern films also include
fairly effective UV blocking layers.

Peter.
--
pirwin.TakeThisOut@ktb.net
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <1128276480.828976.177870.DeleteThis@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Bala Variyam" <bala.variyam.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are either from Tiffen or Canon; not sure about quality, but
> definitely no brass rim.

Use high end filters for the least effect on optical quality. Tiffen are
not even coated, much less multi coated.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

On 2 Oct 2005 10:58:46 -0700, "Bala Variyam" <bala.variyam.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
>from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
>protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
>quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
>no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
>opinion?
>
>Thanks,
>Bala

1. Filters can protect a lens.
2. All filters effect the image in some way.
3. Filters can and do cause unwanted reflections if the camera is
pointed at a bright light source or if one is in or near the field of
view.
4. Good filters are FLAT, plane-parallel and coated to give the least
possible reflections.
5. Tiffen is trash. They cause reflections, have poor optical
quality and can drop the incoming light by 1/3-1/2 an f-stop.
Meter with the filter on an off the camera to be sure.
6. Poor filters should never be used on long telephotos.
7. Stick to multicoated B&W or Hoya filters if you want to use
filters.
8. There is no need nowadays to filter UV light with digitals.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <i3g0k15srffrn98f5js6dounsioqcv7l55.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
Rich <none.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:

> multicoated B&W or Hoya filters

Unless you want the very best and then it is Heliopan.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

In article <1128275926.160808.271310 RemoveThis @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
bala.variyam RemoveThis @gmail.com says...
> Hi,
>
> I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
> from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
> protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
> quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
> no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
> opinion?
>
> Thanks,
> Bala
>
>
Your light is traveling though one more piece of glass, flat as well and
some might say this can cause some effects you can see. I use to always
have a UV or Skylight on but I just don't bother now unless it is a
situation where I am really concerned about damage like a big crowd of
drunk people or water spray (both apply while in Venice). A lot of really
good photos were taken with scratched and dirty lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

Bala Variyam <bala.variyam.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>They are either from Tiffen or Canon; not sure about quality, but
>definitely no brass rim.

Brass rim has no effect on image quality and is pointless if you never
take the filter off of the lens.

One simple test for quality is to shine a light at the filter and look
at the reflection. If the relfleciton is the same color as the light
then it's a lower-quality filter. If it's dark and blue/green then
it's a better filter.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer.RemoveThis@sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer DeleteThis @bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhp9o8$1p3$1@bolt.sonic.net...
>
> One simple test for quality is to shine a light at the filter and look
> at the reflection. If the relfleciton is the same color as the light
> then it's a lower-quality filter. If it's dark and blue/green then
> it's a better filter.

Silliest thing I ever heard...

Doc
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

> I have got a UV protector on all my lenses to protect the lens surface
> from scratches/dust/etc. Is it a best practice to remove the UV
> protector while taking a photo? I think I am noticing that the photo
> quality is considerably less with the protector (even though there are
> no scratches and not too much dust particles). What is the expert
> opinion?

I have a Hoya UV filter on each of my lenses to protect them. I did an
experiment, I photographed a bar code at about 3m with and without the
filter, at various apetures. I printed them to the equivalent of 10x8 and
can see no difference.

The Hoya filters I bought are not the most expensive ones, they have no
outer thread on them so I couldn't use my Canon lens caps. As a guide, I
paid about 13 UK pounds (inc. delivery) for them on eBay from a bloke in
China. They are 77mm diameter.

John
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses 

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-37E52F.17170502102005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <i3g0k15srffrn98f5js6dounsioqcv7l55 DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Rich <none DeleteThis @none.com> wrote:
>
>> multicoated B&W or Hoya filters
>
> Unless you want the very best and then it is Heliopan.
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

From my understanding, the best filters are Hoya and Heliopan. I use Hoya
myself.
 >> Stay informed about: UV protectors on lenses