[jon404]

Do you use a UV filter with your 645? Or a Sky 1A or 1B filter on cloudy days?

Right off the top, I'm assuming there is zero optical value with these filters -- that their real usefulness is to protect the lens from minor damage, scratches, dust, dirt. Obviously, a major impact will break both the filter and the lens. But just keeping the lens clean has value, doesn't it?

Am not a lens cap guy. I want to just pick up the camera and take my picture, very quickly if need be. So -- in your opinion -- is leaving a UV filter on -- more of a benefit than the slight optical degradation it causes?

Also, if anyone knows, does a UV filter cause more optical degradation on a wide-angle lens than on a telephoto? Less? Or, no difference?

[Ole]

On film the UV filter has a mission reducing haze. On digital I haven't seen any benefits reported other than protecting the front element from fingerprints etc.

If you're not a lens cap guy you should leave the hood on at all times - it protects the front element at least as good as the UV filter.

If you don't want to do that either - then I'd recommend the filter.

[tuco]

If shooting BW, just use a yellow filter instead. You'll get some protection and a tone benefit under most conditions.

[tlong423]

I endorse Ole's advice. I used to use UV filters religiously, but I noticed ghosting when I used them on shorter focal-length lenses, so I switched to using hoods on everything (wherever practical, of course). It's worth mentioning that I am very careful with my lenses, however. If you are not the careful type, then (as Ole points out) you may as well make it a practice to use UV filters for the protection quality they provide.

And Tuco's advice is also quite good if you are a B&W shooter for the most part (though I like the more dramatic effect of using a red filter).

[gofour3]

Do you use a UV filter with your 645? Or a Sky 1A or 1B filter on cloudy days?

Right off the top, I'm assuming there is zero optical value with these filters -- that their real usefulness is to protect the lens from minor damage, scratches, dust, dirt. Obviously, a major impact will break both the filter and the lens. But just keeping the lens clean has value, doesn't it?

Am not a lens cap guy. I want to just pick up the camera and take my picture, very quickly if need be. So -- in your opinion -- is leaving a UV filter on -- more of a benefit than the slight optical degradation it causes?

Also, if anyone knows, does a UV filter cause more optical degradation on a wide-angle lens than on a telephoto? Less? Or, no difference?

If you have a 645D then these filters don't have much use. If you have a 645 film camera then yes they do have a use.

Phil.

[Silent Street]

You will realise the value of a filter on the front, irrespective of UV, 1B, 1A, when the lens coming into contact and could potentially sustain a broken front element, saved only by a $100 filter (you certainly don't put a $10 bottle end on it) that you had the foresight to leave on their as a protector.

Skylight 1B is useful on overcast to cloudy days and also when working in shade, but digital cameras, unlike film, have other means of compensating for the colour shift.

[tuco]

I can think of a lot of pictures a red filter does not yield a more dramatic effect for the up to 3 stop penalty in film speed it can give. Not every shot is a landscape with a blue sky full of puffy white clouds.

[jon404]

Thanks for the comments! May end up splitting the difference, so to speak, and just leave a polarizing filter on all the time... lens protection plus the extra contrast/saturation it gives you.

@tuco -- your 'blue sky full of puffy white clouds' could be a killer Photoshop add-on. No more 3-stop penalty!
{IF skyArea is sub-saturated
THEN replace skyArea with dodgerblue hex #1E90FF
AND call function Clouds sprayCan white density 60
endIf}

[tuco]

Not if you are shooting BW film with fine detail gaps between trees and what-not, I suspect. Using colored filters on BW film is not the same as digital color converted to BW and applying software filters. It can be close but it's not the same in my experience. The software method is usually more exaggerated.

[jon404]

@Tuco -- that's interesting! So far, as for film on my 645N, I've used color negative -- Ektar... with hi-res scans... and then converted to B/W on the PC. For straight B/W film, what would you recommend? Many years ago, I used slow speed-Kodak Panatomic a lot, loved the detail...

[tuco]

@Tuco -- that's interesting! So far, as for film on my 645N, I've used color negative -- Ektar... with hi-res scans... and then converted to B/W on the PC. For straight B/W film, what would you recommend? Many years ago, I used slow speed-Kodak Panatomic a lot, loved the detail...

There are a lot of choices if you order online and usually fewer choices if you buy at a local camera store. I don't think you can go wrong with any choice. I take it you have been looking at what other people are using in the film threads here on Pentax Forum. That's a good start.

There are classical cubic grain films and a comparatively newer breed of tabular grain films (Fuji Acros, Kodak's T-Max and Ilford's Delta, for example). The newer tabular grain films typically give you finer grain for the same speed of the cubic grain films and perhaps a different look and feel.

A notable film that seems to work well with just about any developer and has a unique property among BW films is Fuji's Acros 100. It is very resistant to reciprocity failure and with its latitude you really don't need to adjust for long exposures. Fuji does recommend adding an additional 1/2 stop of exposure for times longer than 120 seconds, however.

I shoot Acros, T-Max 100/400 and Delta 3200 most often these days on 120 roll. But I tend to stick with a film for a while before moving on and trying something else. I still have about 150 feet (bulk load) of that Panatomic-X (FX402) in small format you were talking about. I picked up two, 100-foot rolls before they discontinued it.

Experiment and find out. In my experience, you really can judge a BW film by shooting a few rolls. If you are getting bad results, I'd say that its a matter of not being tuned in to it. There are many developers too. And the right combo of film + developer should give you good results.

[jon404]

Will try the Acros. Can't visualize too well in B/W yet, but taking a little P&S with a monochrome preview screen helps. ... must be time for me to cut the PC/laptop cord and go straight from film to prints, like when I was a boy with my Brownie Hawkeye. Thanks for the advice!

[LFLee]

not sure.... if you can afford a 645D, I am pretty sure you don't need a filter to "protect" your lens - just buy another lens if anything happens.

[jon404]

@LFLee -- my mistake, when I posted the thread... I have a 645N, not a 645D. Bought the N for $345, a long way off from the $8,797 645D price on Amazon today. But -- be assured! When I win the lottery, I'll buy a 645D, and, if I damage the lens, toss it off the Golden Gate Bridge on my way in a new Bugatti Veyron to a likely camera store that sells Pentax. ¡La vida es sueño!

[Silent Street]

Will try the Acros. Can't visualize too well in B/W yet, but taking a little P&S with a monochrome preview screen helps. ... must be time for me to cut the PC/laptop cord and go straight from film to prints, like when I was a boy with my Brownie Hawkeye. Thanks for the advice!

ACROS is a beautiful film with an appealing, smooth tonal range and can easily be exposed at EI400 if need be. I expose it with a yellow filter as standard, occasionally a red filter to bump up contrast in flat light or a polariser in rainforests. TMax is also a most esteemed film to use.
As with everything, play around with a few rolls and with different filters in varying lighting conditions. Film is the very best medium to learn photography, believe me.