Filters

[BBW]

I've always had filters on my lenses, at least for protection. I used to be fond of my polarizing filter, too..

I want to buy a 40.5mm filter for the Oly 14-42 and a 46mm for my true love the Panny 20mm. 1. Is there a difference between a UV and Skylight...and would it be better to buy a "clear" one? I've forgotten more than I ever knew thus my questions. 2. Again we come to brands: Tiffen, Hoya, B & W and Olympus...

Any feedback appreciated...

 

[Djarum]

I picked up a skylight for mine, and it does effect exposure slightly, about 1/3 stop. Apparently there is some exposure variances with Skylights. I don't care for it.

I'll be picking up the B+W MRC UV filter. Its about 40 bucks for the 40.5mm filter online at various places. I've been waiting for BHphoto to get it back in stock. They have the standard one, but its not as multicoated as the MRC filter is.

Dj

 

[Streetshooter]

There is a difference between filters and digital filters.
It's usually just the cost. Skylight and UV are much the same. The digital lenses have a UV coating on them. So you just need it for protection which I never use.

In the old daze BB, before your time, UV made a difference. Now not really unless you spend $4000.00 for a Leica lens and need an $89.00 filter to make it work.....

Ok, bash me if'n ya want....

 

[BBW]

Well, I'm going to use them for "protection" unless they get here and I find on the zoom it's just too annoying. I think my old daze, which I don't think are that far away from your old daze, in film in the 70s these things still were used. I loved my polarizing filter back then...just like I still love my polarized sunglasses.

Are you trying to tell me that I don't need to worry about keeping my lenses safe and clean anymore? I'd hate to inadvertently scratch my 20mm, especially.

 

[Streetshooter]

BB,
I'm not saying you don't need protection. We all should wear protection.
I just like my glass naked. Any filter has to introduce something to the rays of light passing thru it to the sensor. We're not dealing with Leica glass here. So my thinking is to keep the light as clean as possible and also reduce reflections.
A little care when working goes a long way.

So, by all means wear protection if ya feel the need.
Shooter

 

[BBW]

I hear you. I'm probably in overkill mode. We'll see...maybe I'll return to sender?

Speaking of care - does anyone use lens paper anymore or is it all microfiber stuff? See, I really am from the old daze.

 

[Streetshooter]

I still use paper, it's Kodak and I use the Kodak lens cleaning fluid. The stuff is oooold but works great.
For your sensor, use the Copperhill Method.

http://www.copperhillimages.com/index.php?pr=Copper_Hill_Products

Never use paper on the sensor.....

 

[BBW]

Hey, thanks so much Don - I really appreciate this information very much. This camera store fellow who is somewhere in our age range told me "no one uses that stuff anymore". The nerve, eh?

 

[Streetshooter]

He's a good kid.....but who likes kids....

 

[Alan Wolf]

Lens fluid

If you've never tried it ROR (Residual Oil Remover) is an amazingly great lens cleaner. With how well lens pen type cleaners work I don't use it that often anymore, but when I really need to get a stubborn smudge off, it works really well. I assume it's still being made—my bottle is pretty old (and still pretty full—a little goes a long way).

Getting back to the original post, so far I'm finding that B+W MRC filters seem to stay cleaner (and clean up easier) than the others I've tried; I think Hoya and Marumi may also have a new final coating layer that is similar. I seem to always manage to mess up my filters, which is why I pretty much keep them on. Besides the finger smudges, I have quite a collection of expensive filters with deep scratches on them (mainly from hiking).

Here's a link to a Polish site that has done some very extensive testing of UV and Polarizing filters:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html

 

[Streetshooter]

Alan,
Yes, I still have many bottles of ROR 1, Mist. Great stuff....
shooter

 

[BBW]

Just got two filters. One is the 40.5 made by Olympus but it is not multi-coated which I only realized after I'd placed the order. I'm thinking I should return it and go for the multi when it comes into stock. Anyone have any strong feelings on multi vs non multi? I'm afraid I've forgotten so much about all this stuff.

 

[OzRay]

I use B&W MRC filters on all of my lenses. I've done heaps of tests with and without and cannot see any difference in image quality. But what difference I do see is that it's much easier to clean and keep clean the front of the lens with the B&W filter than without. With the dusty, cruddy, conditions that I often work in, these filters have saved me many a time.

Cheers

Ray

 

[BBW]

Thanks Ray, that's what I figured. Knowing me, I'll probably return it and wait for the MRC. In looking at my old OM-1 filters I see the detritus of the past all too well, though they're cleanable.

Thanks for your reply because it's always nice to feel vindicated.

 

[BBW]

One more question or two. Does a UV or polarizing filter have any effect on digital?

 

[Lash]

MRC??

What does "MRC" mean??

 

[Alan Wolf]

MRC and answer about effects on digital

MRC is B+W's (probably trademarked) nomenclature for their latest multicoated filters. The final coat is very hard ("scratch resistant") and also seems to clean much easier. I think that several other companies have come up with a similar technology; the last Hoya filters that I bought, which are marked SMC (Super Multi Coated), look to have a very similar light transmission compared to the MRC filters, but are more typical in their maintenance (hence my current preference for the B+W filters.)

I don't believe that UV filters have any real effect on sensors (not including previous generation Leicas) except maybe in a higher altitude situation, where they would help with haze. The sensors are just not as sensitive to the spectrum there, which much film was.

Polarizers are as effective in digital as for film, and get used exactly the same way. One of the neat things about the m4/3 cameras is that they can use Linear, or "Top," polarizers, rather than needing circular ones. If you are getting polarizers that will be dedicated to m4/3, then linear is the way to go—although they're a bit harder to find. But cameras that split off part of the image (half silvered mirror typically) for focus and/or exposure setting only work with circular polarizers—so if you wanted to share filters with a DSLR, then get a circular. The linear design is a bit more effective though.

 

[Lash]

thanks

Thanks, Alan; your reply is quite helpful.

 

[BBW]

Alan by "circular" for polarizers do you mean the kind one needs to turn? That's the kind I had on my OM-1. I don't own a DSLR, so I'll be using it just on the E-P2. Unless I use my OM-1 lenses, I'll need to buy a new one if I go that route. Right now I'm in the early stages yet but glad to know that polarizing filters can still have desired effects.

 

[squeegee]

I still use paper, it's Kodak and I use the Kodak lens cleaning fluid. The stuff is oooold but works great.
For your sensor, use the Copperhill Method.

http://www.copperhillimages.com/index.php?pr=Copper_Hill_Products

Never use paper on the sensor.....

Just out of random curiosity....

why not use paper? (I'm assuming that refers to lens paper). isn't the copperhill thing just a piece of paper stuck to what looks like a popsicle stick?

I don't have any plan on cleaning mine, I'll just let the SSWF so it's thing, I just want to know for the sake of knowing.