UV filter comparison


Status
Not open for further replies.

zmwang

Senior Member
Apr 3, 2004
2,673
0
0
Air-Con country
#1
B+W MRC UV and the nikon L37C UV.

For nikon lens, which one is better?

Thanks.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#4
Actually both are good, just that on eye view against a white piece of paper, the B+W has a slight tint of red, the L37C is clear.

On the protection for the elements against drop & bangs, somebody has tested the B+W on a 28-70 (1KG) dropped face down. Element was intact, filter however broke.
 

gryphon

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2003
1,757
0
0
39
Dry cabinet!
Visit site
#5
ESPN, test yr L37C on a 28-70 (1KG) & drop face down too leh :devil:
Tempt me to change from B+W to L37C :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#6
I can provide a L37C as I still got 2 pieces of 77mm, but you wanna provide the 28-70? I don't have one :)
 

eric69

New Member
Dec 22, 2003
443
0
0
Global Village
#7
zmwang said:
B+W MRC UV and the nikon L37C UV.
For nikon lens, which one is better?
Thanks.
I'm using B+W filters for all my lenses, including B+W MRC UV filters. Personally I think it is equivalent than Nikon's, although I don't have data to justify for that.
 

XXX Boy

New Member
Jan 11, 2004
1,159
0
0
43
GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
#8
zmwang said:
B+W MRC UV and the nikon L37C UV.

For nikon lens, which one is better?

Thanks.
I had tried both the Nikon and the B+W ones. However, I feel that the B+W one have much thicker coating and less prone to kena water-mark. The Nikon one smuge very easily.
Both makes are good filters but I perfer the B+W ones.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#9
Actually I think there is another "brand" that might be worthy of our attention.

TIFFEN.

It has UV filters with different "strengths". Look at sunglasses, with its different UV protection. Sometimes a " weak" filter does nothing at all (except to protect the front element), especially at high elevations
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#10
isn't the 'strength' suppose to be 1.0x 1.1x etc... UV filters are 1.0x, skylight filters are 1.1x and so on & so forth... so if you need something more 'colorful' can get a skylight filter or FLW, etc
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#11
My technical knowledge on UV filters is not that great, but let me try.

Visible light range fromt the longest (red) to the shortest (violet- at 400 nanometer). Anything shorter than 400 nm is called ultraviolet.

Color films have three layers, sensitive to red, green and blue. Blue also responds to ultraviolet. Films are not sensitive to infra-red and do not need infrared filters (but I was told that digital sensors are infra-red sensitive, and infra-red filters are "built-in")

For most of our shooting, the UV light is low and does not affect color. When one ascends higher to the mountains, the amount of UV light increases, and can cast a blue coloration to pictures. Hence the need for UV filters. Like UV glasses, there are glass with different strengths of UV blocking properties. Whether it really make a real difference is another. It is also true that to correct the potential blue cast, one can use a skylight filter.

But all this is very theoretical. There are other factors that can cause a color cost, including vapors.

So at the end of it, I think the most important use for a UV filter is front element protection! Unless you are a purist, of course!
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#13
zmwang said:
student, does it mean that a 40 dollars UV and 90 dollars UV do the same job?
From the perspective of UV filtering function, probably yes!

But there are other factors such as coatings, which can reduce reflections and cause image degradation.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom