CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Would your mother let you outside with only a hood?

aellman Loc: Boston MA

To add to a previous post, I think you have the whole thing upside down. I have never heard of chromatic or other aberrations caused by a UV filter. The best way to answer your question is to make some tests with and without the front end UV filter. That's a lot better answer than any response you'll get here.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

The older lenses were mostly single-coated - not much UV is absorbed. Modern lenses are nearly all multi-coated, which absorbs most UV. It’s noted in a 1975 Tiffen filter manual, and the Nikon Compendium (page 158). For most color transparency users I know of, UV filters have been obsolete for nearly 50 years.

Bill P

Now that was really funny.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I have been on this site for about 5 years and the few folks who follow my posts know that I don't usually get involved in long, protracted and argumentative threads, especially those that are as redundant and unnecessarily controversial like the pros and cons of UV filters. The only thing that intensifies me to participate, occasionally, in these kinds of conversation is my regard for newcomers to photography or the forum and perhaps older film folks reentering the craft in the digital era. I don't like to see patiently incorrect information or even downright silly stuff that may be misinterpreted by the uninitiated, as real.

I am not an optical engineer or a scientist but I never heard of lens coating being intrinsic UV filter or blockers in modern camera lenses. If that were the case, one would think that the manufactures would note such a claim as a feature and an advantage. My understanding is that lens coating are applied mainly to minimize or negate flare.

I have long experience with transparency films in that prior to the digital era of photography, large and medium form transparencies were the mainstay in commercial photography, which is my full-time business. I made thousands of transparencies on both Kodak and Fuji reversal films in out of the doors and studio settings. I shot architectural exteriors, product shots such as barbeque grills and spots gear and some fashion assignment and believe me, our clients would not accept transparencies with a bluish or cyan cast due to the presence of high levels UV in that occurs in natural light- overcast and open shade conditions and with certain kinds of electronic flash illumination. There was no "Photoshop" and the transparences had to be REALLY of high quality and correct color RIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA! Computerized manipulation in pre-press color separation work in the lithographic printing stage was extremely costly and in some cases ineffective. Color correction on UV filtration had to be tested for on each emulation batch and addressed before shooting. The UV filters were import and mandatory tools and were far from obsolete in the day. I always used the best and most current lenses for all my large and medium format photography and never found any of them to have intrinsic UV blocking. Of course, for those of us who are now only shooting digital, this is a moot point but I just hate to read nonsense!

Another kinda silliness: Lenses are basically delicate precision instruments, regardless of the thickness of the glass, and are not intended for being abused, dropped, impacted or pierced by projectiles or impaled by sharp objects. Problem is, in hard usage in the out-of-doors, and under hazardous conditions- theses things happen and there ain't any filter- even a lens cap, that will protect a lens form a violet impact. If the impact is significant enough to shatter the filter, the shards of thin glass will probably exacerbate the damage to the lens. They don't make filters out of Lexan (bulletproof Plexiglas) and even if the did, a serious impact would probably damage or misalign the internal elements of the lens or its mechanicals operation. A filter will, however, protect against abrasion by airborne particles of sand, industrial debris, and soiling by slat or water spray, steam, harmful vapors, oils, fingerprints, and other smudges and dirt. There are certain oils or other contaminants that are difficult or nearly impossible to clean or totally remove without further damage to. the lens surface. Airborne particles can cause abrasion upon contact or cause further damage to the lens coating if not completely removed prior to attempted cleaning. Any of the aforementioned perils can harm a lens and impair the quality of its images much more than the use of a precision-made coated filter. A poorly crafted filter can, however, cause diffusion, flare, and other kinds of image distortion. I don't even know if anyone is marketing second-rate filters anymore. I have never experienced any negative issues with filters made by Zeiss, Hoya, Sing-Ray, Harrison & Harrison, and those marketed by Canon, Nikon, and Hasselblad. You need to use the right exact size and thickness for the lenses in use, use them judiciously adn you will not experience extreme loss of quality, vignetting, or strange color shifts when using polarizers.

UV filters do notabate or cause chromatic aberration!

I am not an avid wildlife or landscape photographer like Mr. Perry but my observations in my previous post in this thread seem to concur with his scholarly and practical observations and advice in his book- as per the link.

These are a time. and a place and legitimate and practical usage for many kinds of equipment and accessories. Of course, each photographer has their own preferences based on their own style, working methods, and requirements and are certainly entitled to express their opinions. Ian, however, seldom in agreement with extreme statements, pro or con, especially those without a strong technical or theoretical basis or al least something backed up by practical experience and proof with actual images!

It is a good practice to make tests on your own! If you are worried about a filter degrading your images, simply make some test images of a target with fine detail- you may even acquire a resolution test target. Make images without the filter and enlarge small sections just short of pixelation and see if there are any significant differences. You can do the same thing to test you less for diffraction at various apertures. If you make actual tests, you will be in a better position to make decisions while shooting and figure out how to come around any shortcomings.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

smf85 noticed it, and as I wrote earlier many of my colleagues retired their UV filters when Nikon introduced the new ‘‘C’’ coating (Nikon Integrated Coating). This from the Nikon Compendium, page 158:
‘‘In colour photography it is advisable to use the L37C filter to screen out UV-radiation below 370nm which can lend a blue cast in shots made in mountains or at the seaside. All the other wavelengths can pass freely. Neutral filters such as this are always left attached to the lens as a protection for the front element. Today this is probably its main task since modern NIC-coated lenses only permit a very small portion of UV-radiation to pass through.’’

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Good information for those who use Nikon lenses of the models you specified. Perhaps, similar coatings are engineered into other brands and models as well. The notion I took exception to is that UV filters became obsolete 50 years ago, during the film era, long before the introduction of digital cameras and prior to the emergence of the lenses you alluded to. I never considered the threshold of UV content referenced to, however, I do know for certain that the undesirable color shifts did occur, in transparency films, under the aforementioned lighting conditions and especially in bridal attire with UV brightener in the fabric. The only preventative measure was the use of a UV filter. If the filter usage was negated, there was no easily practicable remedial technique for correction after the fact. The problem also occurs with color negative films and if filtration was not employed, a very time consuming and painstaking dodging with filters method, during the printing process, was required to correct the blue tint in bridal gowns and veils and other white garments contain UV brighteners. PS-UV brighteners may also be utilized in certain cosmetics (makeup) and eye shadows. Most brides did not want cyan skin tones and blue gowns not do art director appreciate that in fashion shots and thus the UV filters were NOT retired until digital photography became our mainstay.

Again, much of this is moot for me in my current work and experience, in that, I have not experienced any serious UV issues since converting the studio to all digital. I usually use the UV filter in our aerial wok, perhaps just as a force of habit, mostly for the protection of the lens when operating in dusty areas with the camera held somewhat beyond the airframe when shooting from a helicopter with the doors off. Back in the day, many aerial jobs were plagued by haze and UV issues where filtration was usually required. Oftentimes the only solution was the usage of IR films such as special Aerographic Ektachrome- that's at a topic for another thread!

I do appreciate technical writings such as the compendium you mentioned and try to keep up with many of the latest technologies and innovations, however, most of what I write and advise around here is based on workaday experience. I am not saying that I always know more than the next guy or gal but if I don't get acceptable results, I don't get paid and that leads to stuff like not eating and paying the mortgage! I usually don't opine on stuff I never tried, used, did, messed up and corrected, and know why and how it works. Sometimes what I have found to be practical, consistent and successful does not exactly jibe with the theory. In life the means to an end is important- we need to make sure we do things that are lawful, ethical and perhaps traditional. In photographic technical results- the end product is what counts. As long as we don't hurt, marginalize, fool or insult anyone, or pollute the environment, how we get to the best image is always debatable.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well stated and mandatory reading for ALL UHHers
.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I had only considered natural UV light in outdoor scenics, but now that you mention it I recall a thread here quite some time back where someone had a problem with some types of school uniforms and UV filtration was suggested. Since it was about digital imaging I didn’t follow it much, but it did point out that UV filters can be versatile.