Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 15 Sep 2011 (Thursday) 22:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Uv filter test .....

 
whu-1
Member
80 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Sep 15, 2011 22:36 |  #1

Hi guys , im being a little think , can some one explain What is meant by Mean transmission of ultraviolet light , in the lenstip review of the hoya hd uv filter .

http://www.lenstip.com …ent_Hoya_HD_UV_​67_mm.html (external link)

Dose this score afect the image ?
Does the sense on the 60d have a ultraviolet filter any way ?

Cheers :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RHChan84
Goldmember
Avatar
2,320 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Mass
     
Sep 15, 2011 23:26 |  #2

http://www.youtube.com …lRevCom#p/u/9/-e9TUIC-Dtk (external link)
Here is a better answer.


Canon (60D Gripped | 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS | 40mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-200 F4L IS| 430 EXII)
Tamron (17-50 f2.8 VC)
Feedback
Facebook (external link)

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,715 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2540
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 15, 2011 23:49 |  #3

UV filter effectiveness rating is a meaningless thing to measure for digital cameras, as there is already a UV filter just in front of the sensor. It is the UV filter which you are actually dusting off with a blower or a special wipe, not the sensor surface!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
whu-1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
80 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Sep 16, 2011 03:25 |  #4

Ok so i was right that the sensor has a uv filter built in :D

So if add in that score , it comes out at 93 percent for the hoya hd flitter .....

Still what does......

The absorption edge is a bit too close to near ultraviolet – it costs the filter 5 points in the appropriate category.

Mean ? :rolleyes:

And will this efect the image ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Sep 16, 2011 05:21 |  #5

whu-1 wrote in post #13111983 (external link)
The absorption edge is a bit too close to near ultraviolet – it costs the filter 5 points in the appropriate category.

Mean ? :rolleyes:

It means that the filter will absorb a bit of visible light (violet) as well as UV. That will give a small colour cast to your images - but it's hardly going to be noticeable.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crn3371
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,198 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
     
Sep 16, 2011 10:26 |  #6

What it all boils down to is this. If you're looking for a UV filter to protect your camera from UV rays, don't bother. The only real reason people use them any more is for physical protection, which itself is another can of worms.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MCAsan
Goldmember
Avatar
3,826 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta
     
Sep 16, 2011 11:34 as a reply to  @ crn3371's post |  #7

exactly. UV filters made sense in the film days...not really appropriate in the digital days.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
whu-1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
80 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Sep 16, 2011 20:03 |  #8

The main point of the filter for me is protection, due to the way the filter screws on the impact is dispersed when dropped , protecting the lens body and front lens watch some of the digitalrev videos and this is borne out , but all so for use when paragliding hence alt and on hazy at sea cant hurt .

Hence looking at the hoya hd uv .

Looking for a filter with minimal impact.

"It means that the filter will absorb a bit of visible light (violet) as well as UV. That will give a small colour cast to your images - but it's hardly going to be noticeable."

thats what i thought but then they write this

Mean transmission of visible spectrum light 98.3% - Score: 9/10

seams a little odd to half one score and only reduce the othere by 1 if thats the case .

thanks for the reply hollis btw cheers :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,715 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2540
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 16, 2011 20:12 |  #9

whu-1 wrote in post #13115875 (external link)
The main point of the filter for me is protection, due to the way the filter screws on the impact is dispersed when dropped , protecting the lens body and front lens watch some of the digitalrev videos and this is borne out , but all so for use when paragliding hence alt and on hazy at sea cant hurt .

I once had an Olympus zoom lens, one of the first high quality zooms to exist, way back decades ago. Back then, I too, was under the false guidance that a filter 'protected' a lens to impact damage. FALSE!!! I was in Germany, touring a castle. In tight quarters I turned to my right, causing the camera to swing away from my body and crash lens first into a stone wall. The filter was unscratched, the lens was unscratched, but the zoom mechanism was jammed so that the WA portion of the zoom range was not accessible...my 35-70mm zoom turned into a 45-70mm zoom, until it was sent to Olympus to undo the collision damage internally!

The ONLY 'protection' that any filter provides is a shield against wind blown sand or salt spray hitting the front element, or keeping the reaching slimey hands of toddlers from touching the front element. It MIGHT do some good in keeping a paint ball from striking the front element, by destroying the filter when struck. That is all. The rest of physical 'protection' is purely accidental and not assured!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 157
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Sep 16, 2011 20:19 |  #10

whu-1 wrote in post #13115875 (external link)
The main point of the filter for me is protection, due to the way the filter screws on the impact is dispersed when dropped , protecting the lens body and front lens...

That is totally false. For any device to "disperse" (absorb) energy on impact, that device has to squash, bend, or break on impact.

Think about the water-filled or sand-filled barrier barrels you see on a highway in front of something that you wouldn't want to run into. The way they work is by squashing over time when they are hit, reducing the peak energy applied to the car.

A photographic filter simply has no way to absorb any significant amount energy and thus cannot possibly protect a lens on impact. The same forces will be applied to the innards of a lens whether there's a filter on it or not.

On the other hand, if there's a rigid lens hood mounted, there is a good possibility that the hood will bend or break up on impact, absorbing energy and potentially preventing damage to the lens.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,715 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2540
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 16, 2011 20:23 |  #11

SkipD wrote in post #13115920 (external link)
On the other hand, if there's a rigid lens hood mounted, there is a good possibility that the hood will bend or break up on impact, absorbing energy and potentially preventing damage to the lens.


...or the rigid hood can serve as a longer lever arm, aiding in breaking the lens into two, as has been documented via a number of photographs of Canon lenses broken in half with the hood mounted, even the 'robust' L lenses!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
whu-1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
80 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Sep 16, 2011 21:23 |  #12

"That is totally false. For any device to "disperse" (absorb) energy on impact"
"A photographic filter simply has no way to absorb any significant amount energy and thus cannot possibly protect a lens on impact"

ummmmm whats happerning in the digitalrev video then ?

www.youtube.com/watch?​v=cT6wBQR7iqE (external link)
energy going some were :-)


and the original quetion not bean answers .

"It means that the filter will absorb a bit of visible light (violet) as well as UV. That will give a small colour cast to your images - but it's hardly going to be noticeable."

thats what i thought but then they write this

Mean transmission of visible spectrum light 98.3% - Score: 9/10

seams a little odd to half one score and only reduce the othere by 1 if thats the case .
any one know why ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 225
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Sep 16, 2011 21:25 |  #13

SkipD wrote in post #13115920 (external link)
That is totally false. For any device to "disperse" (absorb) energy on impact, that device has to squash, bend, or break on impact.

Think about the water-filled or sand-filled barrier barrels you see on a highway in front of something that you wouldn't want to run into. The way they work is by squashing over time when they are hit, reducing the peak energy applied to the car.

A photographic filter simply has no way to absorb any significant amount energy and thus cannot possibly protect a lens on impact. The same forces will be applied to the innards of a lens whether there's a filter on it or not.

On the other hand, if there's a rigid lens hood mounted, there is a good possibility that the hood will bend or break up on impact, absorbing energy and potentially preventing damage to the lens.

Skip, you're oversimplifying here. If you've got a filter on and the lens hits on a corner, it'll be on a corner of the filter and the impact won't materially affect the threads on the lens. Whereas, if you weren't using a filter and the lens took the same fall, the lens will need to be repaired before you'll be able to use any filter again. I've got an old FD-mount 500 cat. that suffered exactly that damage and the screw-mount hood doesn't want to thread on any more.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 157
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Sep 17, 2011 04:44 |  #14

Jon wrote in post #13116165 (external link)
Skip, you're oversimplifying here. If you've got a filter on and the lens hits on a corner, it'll be on a corner of the filter and the impact won't materially affect the threads on the lens. Whereas, if you weren't using a filter and the lens took the same fall, the lens will need to be repaired before you'll be able to use any filter again. I've got an old FD-mount 500 cat. that suffered exactly that damage and the screw-mount hood doesn't want to thread on any more.

While that's true, a filter ring with no glass in it would do the same thing. But if a hood were mounted you'd also be protecting the filter threads in most cases.

Obviously, there are cases like what Wilt mentioned above but for the typical bumps that a lens takes I would rather a hood take the hit than anything solid such as the lens itself or a filter attached to the lens.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,715 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2540
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 17, 2011 11:45 |  #15

Filters are primarily for optical changes to the light path.
Hoods are primarily for shielding the front optics from stray bright light sources (e.g. sun, artificial light source).

ANY other use of the two accessories is purely incidental to their primary purpose. In SOME cases, they afford a degree of 'protection', but in others they can CONTRIBUTE to damage of the lens or the optical characteristics of a photo!!! That is, the 'protection' is not absolute.

Buy and use the accessories for their primary purpose, not solely for their secondary characteristics.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,435 views & 0 likes for this thread
Uv filter test .....
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DdsT
1821 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.