Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

UV Filters on Digital

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello all,

I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
on a film camera).

I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.

Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
UV filter.

Thanks

Steve

More about : filters digital

Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1105043518.4206.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>,
"Steve West" <steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
> a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
> is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
> on a film camera).
>
> I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
> digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
> CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
> effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.
>
> Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
> left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
> UV filter.
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve

Heliopan SH-PMC

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve West" <steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> writes:

> Hello all,
>
> I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
> a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens,

I'm sure you know even this use is an area of dispute. My suggestion is to
use a good lens hood instead.

> Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
> left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
> UV filter.

If you are going to use another piece of glass in front of the lens, I
suggest you buy one that is of a quality comparable to the lens. Why buy a
good lens and stick a cheap piece of glass in front of it?

I use my camera (uh, it's film, by the way, so I have no clue on your other
query -- my digital camera is a CoolPix 990) on beaches, in rain forests,
the American Southwest (Grand Canyon, Antelope Slot Canyon, Eureka Valley),
and in the usual US urban areas. The _only_ time I use a UV or haze filter
to protect my lens is at Burning Man, where blowing powder (the sediment
from a dried out lake; it's a very fine powder) coats everything, and I'd
rather clean it off the filter than the lens.

A good lens hood and a lens cap will do more to protect your lens, do less
to interfere with the quality of your images, and do more to prevent flare
than adding another piece of glass to your set up.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3qwtuqfe45.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> A good lens hood and a lens cap will do more to protect your lens

Naturally this advice is providing that it isn't raining, you are not at
the beach or in the desert, near kids with peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches, not near smokers, etc. etc., etc.

A lens hood protects against some stray light only. Most people are
using a zoom lens with a fixed length hood. If the hood protected
against all stray light at the longest focal length it will vignette at
the shorter focal lengths. If it does not vignette at the widest setting
it is too short for the longer settings of the lens so it only
marginally protects against stray light. Additionally it provides no
protection against anything blowing directly into the lens. You know
those things, smoke, sand, water, etc.

And should your lens/camera fall or the front of the lens strike
something like a table edge, door frame, fence, tree, etc. a good brass
mounted filter will probably save your lens from a dented ring and the
glass will help to protect the lens itself from something breaking the
front element.

So yes, a lens hood and a lens cap are valuable accessories. But so is a
filter. And when they are used together give you maximum protection for
that nice lens/camera.

The hood and cap only leaves you very vulnerable.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 06 Jan 2005 13:21:14 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Phil Stripling
<phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

>query -- my digital camera is a CoolPix 990) on beaches, in rain forests,
>the American Southwest (Grand Canyon, Antelope Slot Canyon, Eureka Valley),
>and in the usual US urban areas. The _only_ time I use a UV or haze filter
>to protect my lens is at Burning Man, where blowing powder (the sediment
>from a dried out lake; it's a very fine powder) coats everything, and I'd
>rather clean it off the filter than the lens.

FWIW, the front element on our 990s is a piece of glass, not a lens.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> In article <1105043518.4206.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>,
> "Steve West" <steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
> > a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
> > is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
> > on a film camera).
> >
> > I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
> > digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
> > CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
> > effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.
> >
> > Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
> > left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
> > UV filter.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Steve
>
> Heliopan SH-PMC

to be honest,
if a brand can not even be sold used
without worrying about whether someone can buy it
without a customs problem,

I do not buy grey market, but
I would look for another brand.


> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> writes:

> FWIW, the front element on our 990s is a piece of glass, not a lens.

:->

Again, my comments were based on my film camera, not the CoolPix. :->
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> writes:

> In article <3qwtuqfe45.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>
> > A good lens hood and a lens cap will do more to protect your lens
>
> Naturally this advice is providing that it isn't raining, you are not at
> the beach or in the desert, near kids with peanut butter and jelly
> sandwiches, not near smokers, etc. etc., etc.

As I said, the area is subject to dispute. As I also said, I use my camera
on beaches, in rain forests, in deserts, and I'll add -- not only smokers,
but fires. Kids with PBJ, no.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:31:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3qk6qqjf97.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

> Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > In article <3qwtuqfe45.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
> > Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A good lens hood and a lens cap will do more to protect your lens
> >
> > Naturally this advice is providing that it isn't raining, you are not at
> > the beach or in the desert, near kids with peanut butter and jelly
> > sandwiches, not near smokers, etc. etc., etc.
>
> As I said, the area is subject to dispute. As I also said, I use my camera
> on beaches, in rain forests, in deserts, and I'll add -- not only smokers,
> but fires. Kids with PBJ, no.

BTW, Phil.

As for flare a Heliopan SH-PMC multicoated filter passes over 99.9% of
the light that hits it to the film or sensor. This is very possibly more
effective a coating in reducing flare then the coating on your lens.
Additionally this coating's top layer on each side repels dust and
moisture to help keep it cleaner then you can keep your lens. A dirty
lens materially effects the image quality.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:39:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:31:46 -0000, "Steve West"
<steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
>a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
>is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
>on a film camera).
>
>I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
>digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
>CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
>effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.

Here is an excellent discussion of UV photography with digital.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html


***************************************************************

"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:51:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:31:46 -0000, "Steve West"
<steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
>a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
>is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
>on a film camera).

Yes, I think I remember correctly that the sensor is slightly less
affected by UV than most films, and the color response is entirely
different.

>I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
>digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
>CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
>effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.

CCDs can see UV, with a similar optical effect that you get on film.

For whoever doesn't believe this, here is a site if you are interested
in using the D70 to do UV photography:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D70_rev05UV.html

UV itself is a complicated beast. There is more than one type, some of
it makes young girls look prettier (tans), other parts of the spectrum
burns us. Some parts of it pass through ordinary glass, other parts
don't. And we can't even see the damn stuff.

>Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
>left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
>UV filter.

One disadvantage with Hoya HMCs is they can be a bitch to clean. You
can get them optically clean (photos won't be affected), but they
always keep a smeary multi-color thing going when you stare at the
reflective surface at the correct angle. New ones have a nice even
pinky/purple sheen to them, cleaned ones look smeary.

If you are that worried, you should be after a filter that's coated on
*both* sides.

--
Owamanga!
January 7, 2005 12:18:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve West" <steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote in
news:1105043518.4206.0@lotis.uk.clara.net:

> Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to
> be left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super
> HMC pro-1 UV filter.
>

I have a B+W multicoated filter on my coolpix. It is a very nice filter. I
think it was about $50.

Bob
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 2:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:
> As I said, the area is subject to dispute.

To my mind, there is no dispute. Both serve differenct purposes. Hood
can protect from stray light and a soft knock to the front element.
Filter can prevent dust, sand, ash, oily fingers, etc from touching
your lens.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 12:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Phil Stripling wrote:
> > As I said, the area is subject to dispute.
>
> To my mind, there is no dispute.

:-> So you disagree?

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Phil Stripling wrote:
> > > As I said, the area is subject to dispute.
> >
> > To my mind, there is no dispute.
>
> :-> So you disagree?

Do I disagree with myself? ;-) Err .. no. We do argue sometimes, but we
always end up agreeing :) )
January 8, 2005 9:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:31:46 -0000, "Steve West"
<steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
>a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
>is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
>on a film camera).
>
>I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
>digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
>CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
>effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.
>
>Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
>left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
>UV filter.
>
>Thanks
>
>Steve
>
CCDs used on ordinary digital cameras have very feeble response to
even near-UV light, and the presence (or absence) of a so-called "UV
filter" will make little or no difference. More extreme "haze"
filters such as the Tiffen 1-A and especially the 2-A are effective in
blocking residual near-UV, and the 2-A is necessary when shooting
fluorescent specimens to block the effects of the local UV light
source from spoiling the image (even for digital cameras).

An easy test is to simply take a small fluorescent sample and expose
it to a black light (near UV), then interpose the filter to see if it
is effective.

There are of course UV pass filters available such as the 18A, Rolyn
U-360 and a couple others that permit actual UV photography, but
exposure times are very long (for digital) and this is considerably
more difficult than IR photography (long exposures, focal shift).
Special quartz lenses are required for shortwave UV applications, but
many if not most lenses pass a limited amount of the spectrum just
above the visible range, permitting experimenters to at least try
their hand at this.
-kBob
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:36:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

One of the first exercises I did a a photo major in college was to take photos
with and without UV/Skylight/protection filters and without. Guess which was
sharper hands down. Even my Nikon 50mm and 135mm which were nothing to write
home about (traded for Leica) were significantly better without a filter, I
mean significant. No one in our class used one of these4 filters just for
protection. Having Gary Winogrand as an instructor helped us considerably on
how to handle your camera to protect a lens, lens caps when not using, set it
down on a table with the lens down, alll this works well. The filter thing is a
sham stores use to sell high profit items, what do you think a Hoya (respected
brand) filter costs a store, under $10, so they sell it for $17-$35 or so. If
you are interested in photography, your work will be much better without a
filter.

Tom


In article <r9tut0t02uh07odn4ksoc7o5tsht1cv75e@4ax.com>, KBob@nowhere.net
says...
>
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:31:46 -0000, "Steve West"
><steve.west@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I just want to try and clear something up. I have a D70 and am going to add
>>a UV filter, primarily to protect the lens, but what I really want to know
>>is will it have any haze reducing or other effect on the images (as it would
>>on a film camera).
>>
>>I have read various conflicting statements on the sensitivity of CCD's in
>>digital cameras to UV light. Can someone please confirm whether or not
>>CCD's are sensitive to UV and hence whether or not there is an optical
>>effect comparable to that seen with a film camera.
>>
>>Finally, can anyone recommend a decent filter which is good enough to be
>>left on all the time - I was thinking about getting a Hoya super HMC pro-1
>>UV filter.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Steve
>>
>CCDs used on ordinary digital cameras have very feeble response to
>even near-UV light, and the presence (or absence) of a so-called "UV
>filter" will make little or no difference. More extreme "haze"
>filters such as the Tiffen 1-A and especially the 2-A are effective in
>blocking residual near-UV, and the 2-A is necessary when shooting
>fluorescent specimens to block the effects of the local UV light
>source from spoiling the image (even for digital cameras).
>
>An easy test is to simply take a small fluorescent sample and expose
>it to a black light (near UV), then interpose the filter to see if it
>is effective.
>
>There are of course UV pass filters available such as the 18A, Rolyn
>U-360 and a couple others that permit actual UV photography, but
>exposure times are very long (for digital) and this is considerably
>more difficult than IR photography (long exposures, focal shift).
>Special quartz lenses are required for shortwave UV applications, but
>many if not most lenses pass a limited amount of the spectrum just
>above the visible range, permitting experimenters to at least try
>their hand at this.
>-kBob
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:36:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <crpqp4027h6@enews2.newsguy.com>,
tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:

> I did a a photo major in college was to take photos
> with and without UV/Skylight/protection filters and without.

Well what filter were you using?

1, Solid glass, ground and polished and multi-coated on both sides in
brass mounts?
2, Sandwiched glass held together with colored cement in plastic mounts
and uncoated?
3, Solid glass molded via a cookie cutter, in aluminum rim and coated on
both sides?

Or #1 in standard coating?
Or # 3 in multi-coating on one side only?
Or #3 in multi-coating on both sides?

As a photo major then you and your instructor should be far more
specific if you are doing a valid comparison study.

There is a reason why some filters cost more then others. One of those
reasons is quality.

But if you are interested, you may have looked at some of the shots from
the Space Shuttle and Space Station of interiors and exteriors as well
as EVA activities.

All of those are shot with off the shelf, standard coating Heliopan
filters. The criteria for sharpness on these missions are far more exact
then most work done in photo schools and the cost of re-shooting is a
bit more expensive then a blown photo assignment.

Be more specific in what you used, how you used it, when you used it,
how you processed them, when you processed them, what the subjects were,
were they the identical subjects, were they shot at the same time, how
were they compared.

Then your statement might be more valuable as a teaching tool.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:36:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <crpqp4027h6@enews2.newsguy.com>,
tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego) wrote:

> Having Gary Winogrand as an instructor helped us considerably on
> how to handle your camera to protect a lens, lens caps when not using, set
> it
> down on a table with the lens down, alll this works well.

I am glad you were taught how to attach and use a hood and cap and how
to put the camera down lens side first - ever do that with a motorized
camera with a 200 or longer lens?

However your instructor seems to have avoided teaching you how to avoid
hitting the lens against something during heavy shooting or avoiding
spray, sand, smoke, etc.

It is good to know that a cap and hood - and no hood you have ever used
on a zoom protects adequately against something as simple as stray light
- are able to protect your lens from the risks you can face from the
environment you may have to work in.

Guess you never photographed a smoker or a fire or a car accident or a
beach or by the surf, etc.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
January 9, 2005 7:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:31:43 -0500
In message <bob_salomon-B7EE56.20314308012005@news.isp.giganews.com>
Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:

....continued from Message-ID:
<bob_salomon-987DA6.20260508012005@news.isp.giganews.com>

> ...
> I am glad you were taught how to attach and use a hood and cap and how
> to put the camera down lens side first - ever do that with a motorized
> camera with a 200 or longer lens?
>
> However your instructor seems to have avoided teaching you how to avoid
> hitting the lens against something during heavy shooting or avoiding
> spray, sand, smoke, etc.
>
> It is good to know that a cap and hood - and no hood you have ever used
> on a zoom protects adequately against something as simple as stray light
> - are able to protect your lens from the risks you can face from the
> environment you may have to work in.
>
> Guess you never photographed a smoker or a fire or a car accident or a
> beach or by the surf, etc.

Serious Question:

I have been advised that I should use B+W UV filters for general
protection [for quality]. Is that good advise? If not, what would
you recommend?

Jeff
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 7:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2g41u0pphq1et76bp1kh7k7irdn1pbnvm7@4ax.com>,
Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:31:43 -0500
> In message <bob_salomon-B7EE56.20314308012005@news.isp.giganews.com>
> Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> ...continued from Message-ID:
> <bob_salomon-987DA6.20260508012005@news.isp.giganews.com>
>
> > ...
> > I am glad you were taught how to attach and use a hood and cap and how
> > to put the camera down lens side first - ever do that with a motorized
> > camera with a 200 or longer lens?
> >
> > However your instructor seems to have avoided teaching you how to avoid
> > hitting the lens against something during heavy shooting or avoiding
> > spray, sand, smoke, etc.
> >
> > It is good to know that a cap and hood - and no hood you have ever used
> > on a zoom protects adequately against something as simple as stray light
> > - are able to protect your lens from the risks you can face from the
> > environment you may have to work in.
> >
> > Guess you never photographed a smoker or a fire or a car accident or a
> > beach or by the surf, etc.
>
> Serious Question:
>
> I have been advised that I should use B+W UV filters for general
> protection [for quality]. Is that good advise? If not, what would
> you recommend?
>
> Jeff

We import the next step up. Heliopan also from Germany (Bavaria)

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused

> I have been advised that I should use B+W UV filters for general
> protection [for quality]. Is that good advise? If not, what would
> you recommend?
>
> Jeff



I agree with Bob except that Heliopans aren't a step up
from B+W. The B+Ws usually cost a bit more and are at
least as good if not superior to the Heliopans. I use the
later mostly and haven't done a comparison test but I
do believe optical quality is comparable, I can't tell
which filter I had on or even if I had one on. The
original poster seems to have had an instructor that limited
his experience to bottom end filters. Rather odd.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:08:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10u2enjp981a78e@corp.supernews.com>,
Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> The B+Ws usually cost a bit more and are at
> least as good if not superior to the Heliopans

Perhaps you missed the facts that Heliopan color, UV, B&W and ND filters
are supplied standard in thin brass rings with front threads. B+W come
in thick brass rings standard and in thin brass rings with no front
threads at an extra charge. Thus they are more expensive and unable to
use snap caps or screw-in hoods.

All Heliopan polarizers are supplied in calibrated brass mounts. Slim
(no front thread on slim pols) and standard are the same price. B+W are
supplied in non-calibrated brass mounts (except possibly their Kaesmann
versions)

While Heliopans and B+Ws multicoatings are similar and the coating
equipment comes from the same supplier, Heliopan's coating is a newer
version and is more effective at reducing flare as well as repelling
dust and moisture (although both company's MC does repel dust and
moisture).

Heliopan is also the only filter manufacturer who exclusively only uses
Schott glass. Other manufacturers in Germany do not use Schott as their
exclusive supplier.

Lastly all Heliopan filters are only supplied in brass anodized mounts.
B+W has sold a line in some countries called ALU with aluminum mounts
and more basic coatings and glass.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:08:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10u2enjp981a78e@corp.supernews.com>,
Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> The
> original poster seems to have had an instructor that limited
> his experience to bottom end filters. Rather odd.

Not only odd. Poor teaching. Glad I was not the one who had to pay for
that type of education.

But then I once ran into an instructor at a degree granting photo school
who insisted that a normal B&W negative prints best on a 5 grade paper.
Also found another who did not know the use of the aperture ring on
lenses. He taught how to do table top commercial work and everything was
locked down, distance to the object, lighting, exposure. All he knew was
where to position the standards and the camera height for 3-point
perspective.

Fortunately you don't run into these types of instructors any longer.
Although some are so deeply immersed in the art of photography that they
don't learn what a modern piece of equipment may let them do as compared
to an older camera (film cameras primarily). Actually had one at a NYC
college tell us that he never goes to the NY photo show (largest
professional equipment show in USA) as he gets a headache when he enters
the exhibit hall.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
January 9, 2005 11:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote:

> In article <10u2enjp981a78e@corp.supernews.com>,
> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
>
> > The
> > original poster seems to have had an instructor that limited
> > his experience to bottom end filters. Rather odd.
>
> Not only odd. Poor teaching. Glad I was not the one who had to
> pay for that type of education.
> ...

Heh... one way or the other, I'm finding that ya pay
one way or the other in the school of hard knocks and
never-ending upgrades. It's *almost* enough to start
taking the film diehards seriously. :) 

I almost have a full year under my belt with an
SLR (digital or otherwise), 5 lenses, and now find
out Canon only makes *1* lens that they claim is
rectilinear. Sigh... I stupidly assumed from
reviewers comments that "L" also meant straight
lines. It seems very few folks actually examine
full sized photos of test charts.

Thanks for the filter info. I tossed one Hoya away
when I got home one day and found several rock chips
on the surface. Then another when I was testing the
[dismal] 580EX flash thursday (low light rear curtain
time exposures) and found 'ghosts' in the photos.

No problems with a B+W on a 70-200mm f2.8L, but I've
learned how the brain can start playing tricks on you
when things don't work quite right. Is it the lens?
Filter? Camera? Flash? Operator?

Definitely confusing when the inevitable answer is a
combination of "all the above"...

Jeff
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <kp03u0l4gs55vr1ci9ltvb83gupl1t9m4i@4ax.com>,
Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

> It seems very few folks actually examine
> full sized photos of test charts.

Most lenses made for 35mm cameras were not designed for making pictures
of test charts. Add to that the problems that can skew the results of
test chart photos. Things like the parallelism between the chart and the
camera, exposure, atmospheric conditions, lighting, vibration, etc. you
end up with a non-reproducible test that indicates nothing.

On the other hand, if you are copying documents and the camera is
mounted on a copy stand and the chart is really flat then the test has
merit,

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:12:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon


> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
>
>> The
>> original poster seems to have had an instructor that limited
>> his experience to bottom end filters. Rather odd.


> Not only odd. Poor teaching. Glad I was not the one who had to pay for
> that type of education.
>
> But then I once ran into an instructor at a degree granting photo school
> who insisted that a normal B&W negative prints best on a 5 grade paper.
> Also found another who did not know the use of the aperture ring on
> lenses. He taught how to do table top commercial work and everything was
> locked down, distance to the object, lighting, exposure. All he knew was
> where to position the standards and the camera height for 3-point
> perspective.
>
> Fortunately you don't run into these types of instructors any longer.
> Although some are so deeply immersed in the art of photography that they
> don't learn what a modern piece of equipment may let them do as compared
> to an older camera (film cameras primarily). Actually had one at a NYC
> college tell us that he never goes to the NY photo show (largest
> professional equipment show in USA) as he gets a headache when he enters
> the exhibit hall.


Reminds me of the old saying "those that can't do, teach".
Many instructors teach what they learned and have no idea
what is current in the market place. Often the conceptual
aspects are all that matters. Many of my art instructors
were that way, a beautiful painting was not worth discussing
but 12 yellow dots on a wall was good for 15 minutes.
Maybe they feel justified if they consider themselves
cultural elites.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:37:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in news:bob_salomon-
7BCC34.10093109012005@news.isp.giganews.com:

> In article <10u2enjp981a78e@corp.supernews.com>,
> Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
>
>> The B+Ws usually cost a bit more and are at
>> least as good if not superior to the Heliopans
>
> Perhaps you missed the facts that Heliopan color, UV, B&W and ND filters
> are supplied standard in thin brass rings with front threads. B+W come
> in thick brass rings standard and in thin brass rings with no front
> threads at an extra charge. Thus they are more expensive and unable to
> use snap caps or screw-in hoods.
>
> All Heliopan polarizers are supplied in calibrated brass mounts. Slim
> (no front thread on slim pols) and standard are the same price. B+W are
> supplied in non-calibrated brass mounts (except possibly their Kaesmann
> versions)
>
> While Heliopans and B+Ws multicoatings are similar and the coating
> equipment comes from the same supplier, Heliopan's coating is a newer
> version and is more effective at reducing flare as well as repelling
> dust and moisture (although both company's MC does repel dust and
> moisture).
>
> Heliopan is also the only filter manufacturer who exclusively only uses
> Schott glass. Other manufacturers in Germany do not use Schott as their
> exclusive supplier.
>
> Lastly all Heliopan filters are only supplied in brass anodized mounts.
> B+W has sold a line in some countries called ALU with aluminum mounts
> and more basic coatings and glass.


I haven't found the thick ring to be a disadvantage but I don't
stack them, the build quality and optical quality is comparable
as far as I know, I don't know about what sold outside of the US
though.

Schneider Optics says that they do use Schott glass...


http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_stil...
2Bw_difference/

Most other filter manufacturers start with ordinary window glass
that has been poured in thin sheets and cooled quickly, introducing
internal flaws. B+W filters, on the other hand, start with a cylinder
of Schott German optical glass from which the filters are diamond cut,
precision ground, and then polished to ensure flatness on both surfaces
and uniform thickness throughout.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:37:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10u35g2jl9u4nfb@corp.supernews.com>,
Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> Schneider Optics says that they do use Schott glass..

But not exclusively like Heliopan. They do use glass from other
suppliers as well. And have for many years, even before Mandermann
bought the B+W factory from the trustees of the Berman and Weber family
and moved the factory to his Schneider factory from Weisbaden.

However even the days of Heliopan using exclusively only Schott glass
will finally end in the foreseeable future as Schott has discontinued
the manufacture of the glass type used for some KR series warming
filters.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:26:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob Salomon" <bob_salomon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-93ACC0.15484309012005@news.isp.giganews.com...

Your info is usually rather accurate, so I only want to make sure you
are aware of a couple of typo's, it's Biermann and Weber, and
Wiesbaden.

More info at:
<http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/filters_for_stil...;

Bart
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 6:43:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41e1cba3$0$6214$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

> it's Biermann and Weber, and
> Wiesbaden.

Thanks, German is not a first language and my English spelling is even
worse. Someday I should get a German spell checker.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Many thanks to all who replied.
!