[micromacro]

The online information about using UV filters on modern film is conflicting and confusing. Some sources tell that film needs UV protection, some tell there is no need for it anymore with modern film.
I have plenty of filters which came with old lenses, but I really not a fan of using them.
Can you tell from your experience if UV filters really make the difference?

[CarlH]

I've been taking pictures for 35 years and everything I've read and heard about UV filters was they are mostly useful in protecting the front element from
getting scratched and covered in finger prints. Filters are more useful when shooting B&W film

[SpecialK]

What is modern film?

[stevebrot]

What is modern film?

I think it is a little like old-timey film except with more recent expiration dates.


Steve

[denik]

What is modern film?

Many lens element cements have UV protection in them along with the lens coatings. I have used filters for B&W (even with digital), Cir Pols, & ND's for fast lenses when using low ISO's. For protecting the front element, use lens hoods.

[Digitalis]

Colour films are designed to be as insensitive to UV as possible, common B&W films follow this trend. However there are certain B&W emulsions that have significant residual sensitivity to UV. The key here is to experiment: YMMV.

Many lens element cements have UV protection

Modern cements are designed to cure and harden under UV light, but have next to no effect upon transmission of UV itself. Lens coatings and the inherent attenuation of UV through glass reduces UV transmission considerably.

[PGillin]

It also becomes a bigger problem at altitude. I have an old (but multi-coated) L39 UV filter that is often used for protection whilst hiking. Once I switched lenses at a lake slightly below 2000m (~6000ft) and forgot to move the filter over. There was a slight but perceptible difference in the negatives and printing. A similar thing has happened while out on the water on a cloudless summer day in Florida. So I'd say it's not crucial in most situations but could be beneficial in high-UV situations. For B&W films outdoors I would recommend a yellow filter, though.

[micromacro]

Ok, modern film is not my definition, I got it online, stop laughing

Thanks for clearing that confusion. The good news- UV filters are not mandatory, the bad news - I have to waste film to find out which filters can be useful.

[denik]

Colour films are designed to be as insensitive to UV as possible, common B&W films follow this trend. However there are certain B&W emulsions that have significant residual sensitivity to UV. The key here is to experiment: YMMV.



Modern cements are designed to cure and harden under UV light, but have next to no effect upon transmission of UV itself. Lens coatings and the inherent attenuation of UV through glass reduces UV transmission considerably.

From a current Leica blog. 35/2 ASPH that I bought in 1996 or 7 when lens first released had mentioned this in pre released literature.
Jan 14, 2016 - Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Lens (Silver) ..... with modern lenses because the lens elements and cements absorbs almost all UV, ...

[gofour3]

The online information about using UV filters on modern film is conflicting and confusing. Some sources tell that film needs UV protection, some tell there is no need for it anymore with modern film.
I have plenty of filters which came with old lenses, but I really not a fan of using them.
Can you tell from your experience if UV filters really make the difference?

A Skylight is more useful if you are shooting colour film, especially slide. A Skylight does what a UV does and also removes some blue cast in shadow areas.

Phil.

[SpecialK]

I think it is a little like old-timey film except with more recent expiration dates.


Steve

OK, thanks. I was not sure :-)

[Digitalis]

with modern lenses because the lens elements and cements absorbs almost all UV

Can you give me a link to the blog?

[denik]

Can you give me a link to the blog?

Jan 14, 2016 - Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Lens (Silver) ..... with modern lenses because the lens elements and cements absorbs almost all UV,

Can't find the whole link quickly. Leica uses a cement between elements they call 'absorban" (their trade name for it) that is supposed to absorb UV light, obviating the need for a UVa filter. Leica has been using absorban as a lens element cement since 1950. Rest assured that the cement formula has been tweaked many times since then. No idea what cement all others are using as mfg's unpublished secret.

[Digitalis]

Leica uses a cement between elements they call 'absorban"

I have known about absorban for quite a while, It has been mentioned in the Leica M Lens compendium (2001 Edition) but it is the first time I have heard the claim that it attenuates UV at a greater rate than glass itself. they would have to use a lot of it in their lenses* to accomplish this degree of efficiency. The funny thing is that I own a Leica branded UVa filter. However it is probably counterfeit, as Leica staunchly held the position that all filters degrade image quality by introducing spherical aberration, regardless of how thin they were.


* Over many years of restorations and repairs to Leica lenses I have been using standard UV curing cements without issue, imaging characteristics of the restored lenses are basically identical to copies already in my possession.

[stevebrot]

with modern lenses because the lens elements and cements absorbs almost all UV, ...

Makes since...more elements = more glass --> less UV to the media...


Steve