Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] WTB: IR/UV filters
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:17:28 +1000
References: <04DF0FF6-097A-444A-9BAE-6470022554AA@sfr.fr> <C8A6EB9E.2CB6%mark@rabinergroup.com> <AANLkTimOehep+yHkQ2dE85Lbk8176FTEniDsrncRT5rb@mail.gmail.com> <p06230902c8a79995733f@192.168.1.22>

Thanks Henning. That led me to re-read about the construction of the B+W
filters, which I use.
I see that the lamination is not applicable to the UVs I have, as you say.
They are made from Schott glass. I was mistakenly thinking of the Schott
glass LCD protector that I have , which is laminated.
I consider that Mark's contention that a filter will shatter into a million
ultrasharp pieces and therefore be worse than no filter to be nonsense. I'm
happy to use mine in any event and as I mentioned mine have prevented lens
damage on three occasions. I don't understand why there are polarised
opnions on this. Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm certainly not telling anyone
else what they should do, only my personal preference and experience.

Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 4 September 2010 16:52, Henning Wulff <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote:

> At 9:45 AM +1000 9/4/10, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
>
> Why do you think that the filters would likely shatter into a million ultra
>> sharp pieces? Good ones at least are laminated materials.
>>
>>
> At present only polarizers are still sometimes laminated; most others are
> dyed in the mass. The latter would shatter.
>
> In earlier times coloured filters were laminated because the dyes could be
> controlled better in gel form than as dyes added to molten glass. They were
> abandoned when dyed in the mass became possible because the gels tended to
> fade relatively quickly, and they necessitated thicker filters which caused
> a lot of plano-parallelism problems. I once (in the 70's) checked about 50
> filters; over 75% of the laminated gel types had surfaces that weren't
> perfectly parallel which would cause serious problems with some lenses. The
> gels also didn't really provide any structural strength; not like the vinyl
> in laminated safety glass.
>
> As far as the UV filter argument goes, the filter ring ding vs. lens rim
> ding I can understand, but my lens shades do an even better job and they
> shade besides. Also, if you shatter the filter after whacking the lens
> against something, it does not necessarily follow that the front element
> would have been damaged if the filter had not been there. Maybe yes, maybe
> no.
>
> As you might guess from the above, I use filters when there is a good
> reason, but leave it off otherwise. I did some tests once which showed that
> under some circumstances the images gets slightly degraded when a filter is
> used. Not often, but still...
>
> If you use a filter, make sure the coatings are good. It doesn't have to be
> the most expensive one.
>
> --
>
>   *            Henning J. Wulff
>  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
>  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard) ([Leica] WTB: IR/UV filters)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] WTB: IR/UV filters)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] WTB: IR/UV filters)