Blue Blocking filter
Sep 9, 2015 16:37:09 #
I have read that Canon has incorporated a blue blocking filter internal to its new version of the 35mm L lens. Would mounting a Blue Blocker filter in front of a lens have the same effect? I've seen the effect of wearing "BluBlocker" sunglasses, would the effect be the same seeing it through a camera's sensor?
B
B
Sep 9, 2015 16:41:35 #
Bill Emmett wrote:
I have read that Canon has incorporated a blue blocking filter internal to its new version of the 35mm L lens. Would mounting a Blue Blocker filter in front of a lens have the same effect? I've seen the effect of wearing "BluBlocker" sunglasses, would the effect be the same seeing it through a camera's sensor?
B
B
Define blue blocker. I'm thinking of a minus blue (yellow) filter and I'm pretty certain that would only be pleasing for b&w
Sep 10, 2015 04:01:18 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Bill Emmett wrote:
I have read that Canon has incorporated a blue blocking filter internal to its new version of the 35mm L lens. Would mounting a Blue Blocker filter in front of a lens have the same effect? I've seen the effect of wearing "BluBlocker" sunglasses, would the effect be the same seeing it through a camera's sensor?
B
B
It is not a "blue blocking filter," but a "Blue Spectrum Refractive" element, to better correct chromatic aberration.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9530547937/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-blue-spectrum-refractive-optics
Had to laugh when they say it's considerably heavier than the earlier version. 180g? My 35 f/1.4 Summilux-R weighs 690g! The Canon lens should have pretty good image quality, though.
Sep 10, 2015 12:36:17 #
Since I posted the "blue blocker" question I did some more research. Actually, the filter I talked about is known as the Wratten 12 filter. Once I found the true name of the filter, I found lots of information, charts, and even how Kodak got involved in the early 1900s. I did find the filter is only applicable to film cameras, and lenses.
B
B
Sep 10, 2015 13:19:50 #
RWR wrote:
It is not a "blue blocking filter," but a "Blue Spectrum Refractive" element, to better correct chromatic aberration.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9530547937/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-blue-spectrum-refractive-optics
Had to laugh when they say it's considerably heavier than the earlier version. 180g? My 35 f/1.4 Summilux-R weighs 690g! The Canon lens should have pretty good image quality, though.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9530547937/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-blue-spectrum-refractive-optics
Had to laugh when they say it's considerably heavier than the earlier version. 180g? My 35 f/1.4 Summilux-R weighs 690g! The Canon lens should have pretty good image quality, though.
It is 180g heavier than the earlier version (870g)!
Sep 10, 2015 16:27:25 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
speters wrote:
It is 180g heavier than the earlier version (870g)!
:oops: I realized it was ridiculous as soon as I wrote it, then got interrupted and hit send too soon. 870g is more like it!
Sep 10, 2015 16:31:19 #
Bill Emmett wrote:
Since I posted the "blue blocker" question I did some more research. Actually, the filter I talked about is known as the Wratten 12 filter. Once I found the true name of the filter, I found lots of information, charts, and even how Kodak got involved in the early 1900s. I did find the filter is only applicable to film cameras, and lenses.
B
B
Yes, the Wratten 12 filter was what I was referring to as well. It is also known as a minus blue filter. It would have no benefit for digital cameras except for a b&w only camera like the Lecia M monocrom
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.