UV Filters

[TimothyHyde]

I just took delivery of a new lens for my X1D but forgot to get a UV filter, so I need to order one. Typically I order the best filter available but I’ve been wondering: For modern medium-format lenses, is there any meaningful difference between a $100+ Hasselblad filter and mid-priced B+W or Zeiss filters? I use these filters solely to protect the lens, but I do want to minimize distortion, reflections, and flaring. I sometimes remove the filter for critical shots, especially on a tripod at night, but otherwise they are always on the lens.

Thanks.

 

[Christopher]

I would go for multicoated filter. In my opinion B+W filters are completely fine and my guess is Hasselblad is just buying theirs from someone like that.

 

[drunkenspyder]

For rounds, I have become a big fan of Breakthrough. Knurled edge [I know some don't love that] and superb glass at less-than-Zeiss prices, more in the B+W range. Warranty is excellent [and honored immediately], though the warranty registration process is pretty kludgy. Available directly or through Amazon or B+H. I put a Breakthrough UV or every single lens that didn't already have a B+W.

 

[tcdeveau]

I haven't seen any tests but I wouldn't think there's any meaningful difference between a Hasselblad UV filter and a quality filter from another brand (like B+W, Zeiss, Breakthrough). I've always just used B+W filters for my Hasselblad lenses, I think the XS-pro ones.

 

[SrMphoto]

I just took delivery of a new lens for my X1D but forgot to get a UV filter, so I need to order one. Typically I order the best filter available but I’ve been wondering: For modern medium-format lenses, is there any meaningful difference between a $100+ Hasselblad filter and mid-priced B+W or Zeiss filters? I use these filters solely to protect the lens, but I do want to minimize distortion, reflections, and flaring. I sometimes remove the filter for critical shots, especially on a tripod at night, but otherwise they are always on the lens.

Thanks.

Why do you need a UV filter? If for protection, why not a clear filter?

P.S.: I am worried about the loss of image quality and therefore avoid using filters on my lenses, but I am not saying you should too.

 

[tcdeveau]

Why do you need a UV filter? If for protection, why not a clear filter?

P.S.: I am worried about the loss of image quality and therefore avoid using filters on my lenses, but I am not saying you should too.

I think there are advantages to UV over clear, but depends on the strength of the UV/IR filter of the camera/back I suppose. There's not much of a cost difference between the two.

I'm a big fan of UV filters for protection but think it's one of those things where personal preference prevails.

They've saved my butt a couple times. I dropped a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 once on the way to a paid gig where the UV filter took the brunt of the impact and shattered, but the front element was left untouched. I also had an incident where my tripod with H4D-40 and 35-90mm tipped over, and landed front-element down on a rock. Again, UV filter shattered, front element unscathed.

 

[TimothyHyde]

Why do you need a UV filter? If for protection, why not a clear filter?

P.S.: I am worried about the loss of image quality and therefore avoid using filters on my lenses, but I am not saying you should too.

A filter costs a hundred bucks and lenses cost between $3,000 and $11,000. I have damaged several filters over the years, but never had a scratch of crack on the front of a lens. All you have to to is look at the lens shade (at least mine) to know what kind of abuse that end of the system takes. As I mentioned, I will remove the filter for important nighttime work when I get light reflections bouncing around on the various surfaces, but only while it's on the tripod. I don't think there is a meaningful difference between clear and UV filters.

tim

 

[Leigh]

Why do you need a UV filter? If for protection, why not a clear filter?

Some film or sensors have blue sensitivity that extends into the ultra-violet range.

Adding a UV filter removes that energy from the light from the subject, yielding a more accurate exposure in that section of the spectrum.

I have UV protective filters mounted on every lens that I own (~40).

- Leigh

 

[Shashin]

These may be of interest:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Money is not an indicator of quality, at least on the high end.

I use UV filter, but probably IR cut would make more sense with digital. But I am not sure IR cut are made as general protection and how hard the coatings may be. UV is more of a film thing as film is naturally sensitive to UV.

 

[Leigh]

Money is not an indicator of quality, at least on the high end.

That's certainly true.

Some brands charge $x for the product plus $10*x for the name. Leica is the most obvious offender (IMO) but there are others.

I use UV filter, but probably IR cut would make more sense with digital. ...
UV is more of a film thing as film is naturally sensitive to UV.

True.
Silver halides are sensitive to energy well above UV into x-rays and above. Dyes must be added to extend the spectral sensitivity downward to green, red, and, in the extreme, IR.

Regular glass used in photographic lenses will pass IR but generally block UV. Some lenses have a separate IR focus index, but none (that I know of) have a UV focus index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_film

- Leigh