Professional Web Applications Themes

UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now - Photography

I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input! cheers, Bill...

  1. #1

    Default UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!

    cheers,
    Bill
    Bill Doyle Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now



    "Bill Doyle" <pitchinvasionattbi.com> wrote in message news:59455f40.0307140704.75bb303fposting.google.c om...
    > I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    > filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    > now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    > outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    > and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!
    The UV will offer good protection (and little else); the polarizer
    will offer fake-looking color and will show uneven skies at wider
    angle FL selections. I would get the UV (only...).
    --
    David Ruether
    [email]rpn1cornell.edu[/email]
    [url]http://www.ferrario.com/ruether[/url]
    Hey, take a gander at [url]www.visitithaca.com[/url], too...!


    David Ruether Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    Bill Doyle wrote:
    > I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    > filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    > now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    > outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    > and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!
    Take good care of your lens, and forget about the UV filter (for now). Get
    the polarizer now, and use it sparingly, only when appropriate.


    Q.G. de Bakker Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now


    "Bill Doyle" <pitchinvasionattbi.com> wrote in message
    news:59455f40.0307140703.7efc0a8cposting.google.c om...
    > I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    > filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    > now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    > outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    > and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!
    >
    > cheers,
    > Bill
    Bill,

    Get the polarizer, a circular polarizer. Disregard the comments about
    fake color, as it doesn't change any colors (polarizers are GRAY). The
    Polarizer will enhance (darken) pale skies and reduce or eliminate
    atmospheric haze if used correctly. Great for mountain scenes and other
    distance shots. It will also reduce or eliminate reflections from most
    shiny surfaces. Would be helpful near water to reduce or enhance the
    highlight reflections from wave tips.

    You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or Skylight
    filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take care of
    your lenses. To be honest, the amount of UV and Haze reduction I've seem
    from most of these filters cannot even be seen. However, the amount of haze
    reduction I've experienced with a Polarizer can make the difference in the
    shot.

    Jim



    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - [url]http://www.uncensored-news.com[/url]
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    Jim Phelps Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    > You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or Skylight
    > filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    > several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    > UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take care
    of
    > your lenses.
    UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV light
    (high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    cast. Skylight is almost a must if you use Provia 100 which itself
    emphasizes colder colors. True, with negative film you can get colors
    corrected at the printing stage.

    The polarizer will also cut-off unwanted UV light, but will add additional
    effects (reduced reflections, darker skies) which you may not always want.

    As I almost exclusivelly use slide film I'd go with UV or Skylight.



    Leon Mlakar Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    Jim Phelps wrote:
    > Get the polarizer, a circular polarizer. Disregard the comments about
    > fake color, as it doesn't change any colors (polarizers are GRAY). The
    > Polarizer will enhance (darken) pale skies and reduce or eliminate
    > atmospheric haze if used correctly. Great for mountain scenes and other
    > distance shots. It will also reduce or eliminate reflections from most
    > shiny surfaces. Would be helpful near water to reduce or enhance the
    > highlight reflections from wave tips.
    It will also take away the veiling glare of white reflected light from many
    surfaces, shiny or not (!), increasing the colour saturation of those
    surfaces.

    On the other hand, a polarizer will take away reflections form almost
    anything, making many scenes appear dull, lifeless, "bad".
    So use with discretion! Please, please, don't use them "all the time"!
    > You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or Skylight
    > filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    > several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    > UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take care
    of
    > your lenses. To be honest, the amount of UV and Haze reduction I've seem
    > from most of these filters cannot even be seen. However, the amount of
    haze
    > reduction I've experienced with a Polarizer can make the difference in the
    > shot.
    Different haze. UV filters can be quite useful things.


    Q.G. de Bakker Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    You could try


    [url]www.keh.com[/url]


    and see if they have a pair of 'used' filters in your budget range.

    But unless you can be positive of 'clear, sunny weather" -- the
    polarizer filter may not be in your best interest. It is a bit harsh
    to lose a stop or two in overcaste conditions. The UV filter will
    work the same in cloudy or sunny conditions.
    = = =
    [email]pitchinvasionattbi.com[/email] (Bill Doyle) wrote in message news:<59455f40.0307140703.7efc0a8cposting.google. com>...
    > I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    > filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    > now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    > outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    > and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!
    >
    > cheers,
    > Bill
    Jerry L. Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On 14 Jul 2003 11:42:25 -0700, [email]pitchinvasionattbi.com[/email] (Bill Doyle)
    wrote:
    >I am going on vacation in two weeks. I want both a polarizer and a UV
    >filter for my new Canon 17-40 lens, but I only have the money right
    >now for one of them. the vast majority of my shooting will be
    >outdoors. which filter will serve me best for my trip, given my lens
    >and the outdoor nature of my shots? thanks for any input!
    >
    >cheers,
    >Bill
    A good lens hood will serve you better!

    George Mann
    George Mann Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:55:46 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >> You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or Skylight
    >> filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    >> several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    >> UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take care
    >of
    >> your lenses.
    >
    >UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV light
    >(high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    >cast.
    This is 40 year old advice. Today it is not applicable. Modern lenses
    do not pass UV light. It's because of the multicoating.

    Old legends die hard.

    A UV filter does nothing except protect the front element of your
    lens. Put it on in hazardous situations - splashing water, or 2-year
    old kid who has just had lunch. Take it off when there are bright
    light sources (like the setting sun) or you will get ghosts in the
    image.

    In most situations, a lens hood will protect the front element
    adequately and give shade too, making a UV filter unnecessary.

    Polarizers are great for creative effects in certain situations, like
    darkening skies as others have pointed out. They reduce reflections,
    but only work on sources that are themselves polarized. That includes
    blue skies but not clouds; also includes reflections off roads, glass
    surfaces, leaves, water and paint but not off metal or inside glass
    prisms. (Good thing that mirror in your SLR is metal, right?) They
    work better at moderate angles than at very steep or shallow angles.
    This means that skies won't darken evenly, because the angle changes.

    Try two polarizers that are crossed. That blocks all light. Then put
    some crystalline stuff between them and observe the effects.

    Don't forget that you can use a polarizer to increase the reflection
    too.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now


    "> On the other hand, a polarizer will take away reflections form almost
    > anything, making many scenes appear dull, lifeless, "bad".
    > So use with discretion! Please, please, don't use them "all the time"!
    >

    Sorry for the confusion. When I said I use them all the time, I did not
    mean I leave them on the lens all the time. I should have - more correctly
    said - I use them more often than any other filter I own. About 90% of my
    images do not have any filter in front of the lens.

    Jim



    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - [url]http://www.uncensored-news.com[/url]
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    Jim Phelps Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now


    "Avogadro" <AvogadroAcme.com> wrote in message
    news:fdf8hvo4p8c0q6377p8hdkutl3ifcknmd84ax.com...
    > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:55:46 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    > <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >
    > >> You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or
    Skylight
    > >> filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    > >> several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    > >> UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take
    care
    > >of
    > >> your lenses.
    > >
    > >UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV
    light
    > >(high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    > >cast.
    >
    > This is 40 year old advice. Today it is not applicable. Modern lenses
    > do not pass UV light. It's because of the multicoating.
    >
    > Old legends die hard.
    Then the legend must have made the passage through the time warp to add blue
    to my August 2002 shots from Croatian coast made with Pentax-F 50 f/1.4 (SMC
    coating!) without UV or any other filter.

    Leon



    Leon Mlakar Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:53:53 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >
    >"Avogadro" <AvogadroAcme.com> wrote in message
    >news:fdf8hvo4p8c0q6377p8hdkutl3ifcknmd84ax.com.. .
    >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:55:46 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    >> <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or
    >Skylight
    >> >> filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    >> >> several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    >> >> UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take
    >care
    >> >of
    >> >> your lenses.
    >> >
    >> >UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV
    >light
    >> >(high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    >> >cast.
    >>
    >> This is 40 year old advice. Today it is not applicable. Modern lenses
    >> do not pass UV light. It's because of the multicoating.
    >>
    >> Old legends die hard.
    >
    >Then the legend must have made the passage through the time warp to add blue
    >to my August 2002 shots from Croatian coast made with Pentax-F 50 f/1.4 (SMC
    >coating!) without UV or any other filter.
    I've shot such scenes with and without UV filter and observed no
    difference.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:53:53 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >
    >"Avogadro" <AvogadroAcme.com> wrote in message
    >news:fdf8hvo4p8c0q6377p8hdkutl3ifcknmd84ax.com.. .
    >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:55:46 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    >> <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or
    >Skylight
    >> >> filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    >> >> several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    >> >> UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take
    >care
    >> >of
    >> >> your lenses.
    >> >
    >> >UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV
    >light
    >> >(high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    >> >cast.
    >>
    >> This is 40 year old advice. Today it is not applicable. Modern lenses
    >> do not pass UV light. It's because of the multicoating.
    >>
    >> Old legends die hard.
    >
    >Then the legend must have made the passage through the time warp to add blue
    >to my August 2002 shots from Croatian coast made with Pentax-F 50 f/1.4 (SMC
    >coating!) without UV or any other filter.
    Here is a quote from Pentax's book "Takumar Lenses for the Asahi
    Pentax", page 4:

    "Super-Multi-Coating creates truer colours since light is transmitted
    more evenly at each wavelength. Another benefit: the
    Super-Multi-Coated lenses do not transmit the invisible ends of the
    spectrum nearly as well. The happy, automatic result is a UV filter
    effect."

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now


    "Leon Mlakar" <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote in message
    news:NeQQa.276$2B6.50789news.siol.net...
    > > You will use a Polarizer for many more effects then an UV or Skylight
    > > filter. In fact, I don't own a UV/Skylight filter (anymore) but I own
    > > several Polarizers in various sizes - and use them all the time.
    > > UV/Skylight filters are not all that beneficial, as long as you take
    care
    > of
    > > your lenses.
    >
    > UV filters are useful if shooting slides in the areas with a lot of UV
    light
    > (high mountains, seaside). Without UV filter the slides will get bluish
    > cast. Skylight is almost a must if you use Provia 100 which itself
    > emphasizes colder colors. True, with negative film you can get colors
    > corrected at the printing stage.
    >
    > The polarizer will also cut-off unwanted UV light, but will add additional
    > effects (reduced reflections, darker skies) which you may not always want.
    >
    > As I almost exclusivelly use slide film I'd go with UV or Skylight.
    >
    >
    E-6 Process Slide films - in general - have a higher blue sensitivity than
    say K-12 (Kodachrome) but less than the old E-4 process films. However, and
    with many years of experience and thousands of rolls of B&W, E-4 (yes, I go
    back that far), K-12 and E-6 as well as C-41, you will see negligible
    differences between a shot taken with a UV/Haze filter and those without.
    IMHO, the UV filter - as a filter - is not worth it's costs, and they are
    some of the cheapest filters, so that's bad. Now, the same shot with a
    polarizer, at the right time of day (that is; when the sun's influence is at
    it's peak), you can almost eliminate that haze. These facts are not just
    mine and can be found in a great many recognized publications.

    Skylight and UV filters have a slightly bluish color to them. With positive
    film, this will create the bluish cast you complain of. A polarizer's
    effect, particularly the sky enhancement and reflections, can be adequately
    controlled via filter rotation. From almost no effect to their full effect.


    >


    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - [url]http://www.uncensored-news.com[/url]
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    Jim Phelps Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:47:39 +0200, "Leon Mlakar"
    <leon.mlakarRemoveThis.hermes.AndThis.si> wrote:
    >> >> This is 40 year old advice. Today it is not applicable. Modern lenses
    >> >> do not pass UV light. It's because of the multicoating.
    >> >>
    >> >> Old legends die hard.
    >> >
    >> >Then the legend must have made the passage through the time warp to add
    >blue
    >> >to my August 2002 shots from Croatian coast made with Pentax-F 50 f/1.4
    >(SMC
    >> >coating!) without UV or any other filter.
    >>
    >> Here is a quote from Pentax's book "Takumar Lenses for the Asahi
    >> Pentax", page 4:
    >>
    >> "Super-Multi-Coating creates truer colours since light is transmitted
    >> more evenly at each wavelength. Another benefit: the
    >> Super-Multi-Coated lenses do not transmit the invisible ends of the
    >> spectrum nearly as well. The happy, automatic result is a UV filter
    >> effect."
    >
    >I've read this book, and I've seen other similar texts. I really wanted find
    >out a reason for bluish cast. The only possible reason I came out is that:
    >
    >a. on that day, the air was unusually dry and clear as the cold front passed
    >overnight with heavy storms
    >b. the shots were taken at arround betweem 1pm and 3pm
    >
    >a. and b. combined means there was a *lot* of UV light arround. The SMC
    >multicoating perhaps does not cut off *all* of the UV light but only a major
    >part (if you read above statement carefully, the claim is "... not nearly as
    >well" and not "...not at all". A combination of rather simple lens (6 groups
    >only) and huge amount of UV arround could have resulted in just enough UV
    >reaching the film to add a bit of blue.
    >
    >I cannot substantiate above claim in any other way but with my slides. I
    >also had a similar experience later last year, and this slide:
    >[url]http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1312381[/url]
    >had to be made warmer in photoshop even though it was made with Sensia 100,
    >which is considered to be a "warm" film.
    >
    > In any case, after last summer I'm using UV filter when shooting at the
    >sideside during day and I haven't got bluish slides since.
    Leon,

    It's very good that you are now getting good results with the UV
    filter on.

    The issue we are discussing is really a technical one, namely does the
    UV filter make a difference. To answer that, you only have to take a
    shot both ways, with and without the filter. Then compare the results.

    Most people who try this discover that it makes no difference.
    Information from written sources supports this.

    It's up to you whether you want to do the test. Maybe you don't care.
    That's okay with me. But please don't claim that UV filters reduce
    blue colors when you have never actually determined that.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    x-no-archive: yes

    "Avogadro" <AvogadroAcme.com> wrote in message
    news:r6ddhv09sm0m74ghi2d0phblijpc030lt04ax.com...
    > The issue we are discussing is really a technical one, namely does the
    > UV filter make a difference. To answer that, you only have to take a
    > shot both ways, with and without the filter. Then compare the results.
    >
    > Most people who try this discover that it makes no difference.
    > Information from written sources supports this.
    >
    You seem to be offering "one-size-fits-all" advice. Your suggestion of
    doing a test may not offer conclusive results. The amount of UV ligit
    varies depending upon time of day and cloud conditions. A single
    photograph, taken at some arbitrary point in time during the day, would not
    really prove anything.

    Not all lenses are multi-coated, and not all multi-coated lenses will
    necessarily have the same UV absorption characteristics. The result is that
    some lenses may exhibit near-total UV absorption, while others do not.

    For me, it boils down to a question of whether the slight image degradation
    introduced by the use of a UV filter is worth the potential advantages of
    using the filter. Since I use SMC Takumars, which have been out of
    production for nearly 3 decades, I am oriented toward avoiding damage to my
    lenses, as they are not so easily replaced. I keep a skylight, a UV or a
    polarizer fitted on each of my lenses at all times. I have not had to clean
    the front elements of my lenses in decades. I'd rather sacrifice a filter
    than risk overcleaning the front element on a prime lens, and I am willing
    to pay the small price in terms of image degradation.

    I have read estimates that the use of a good UV or Skylight filter may
    result in a 2% loss in image quality, as opposed to a 30% loss of sharpness
    just from the slight body movement caused by one's heart beating at the time
    of exposure. If that estimate is accurate, the use of a filter is, to me, a
    non-issue.

    Herbert Keppler's assessment, in his book, "The Pentax Way," makes the most
    sense to me: "Use of a UV can never hurt. It can only help."


    Jeremy Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:42:31 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremyno-spam-thanks.com>
    wrote:
    >x-no-archive: yes
    >
    >"Avogadro" <AvogadroAcme.com> wrote in message
    >news:r6ddhv09sm0m74ghi2d0phblijpc030lt04ax.com.. .
    >
    >> The issue we are discussing is really a technical one, namely does the
    >> UV filter make a difference. To answer that, you only have to take a
    >> shot both ways, with and without the filter. Then compare the results.
    >>
    >> Most people who try this discover that it makes no difference.
    >> Information from written sources supports this.
    >>
    >
    >You seem to be offering "one-size-fits-all" advice. Your suggestion of
    >doing a test may not offer conclusive results. The amount of UV ligit
    >varies depending upon time of day and cloud conditions. A single
    >photograph, taken at some arbitrary point in time during the day, would not
    >really prove anything.
    So take two then, one with and one without the filter.
    >Not all lenses are multi-coated, and not all multi-coated lenses will
    >necessarily have the same UV absorption characteristics. The result is that
    >some lenses may exhibit near-total UV absorption, while others do not.
    Quite true. The test will disclose this.

    I understand that modern film emulsions have built-in UV filtration,
    so whether the lens blocks UV may not matter, depending on the film
    you use.
    >For me, it boils down to a question of whether the slight image degradation
    >introduced by the use of a UV filter is worth the potential advantages of
    >using the filter. Since I use SMC Takumars, which have been out of
    >production for nearly 3 decades, I am oriented toward avoiding damage to my
    >lenses, as they are not so easily replaced. I keep a skylight, a UV or a
    >polarizer fitted on each of my lenses at all times. I have not had to clean
    >the front elements of my lenses in decades. I'd rather sacrifice a filter
    >than risk overcleaning the front element on a prime lens, and I am willing
    >to pay the small price in terms of image degradation.
    SMC Takumars are readily available in the local used camera stores and
    on eBay. Of course I would still treat them as precious.
    >I have read estimates that the use of a good UV or Skylight filter may
    >result in a 2% loss in image quality, as opposed to a 30% loss of sharpness
    >just from the slight body movement caused by one's heart beating at the time
    >of exposure. If that estimate is accurate, the use of a filter is, to me, a
    >non-issue.
    >
    >Herbert Keppler's assessment, in his book, "The Pentax Way," makes the most
    >sense to me: "Use of a UV can never hurt. It can only help."
    Matter of preference. I don't dispute your line of thinking.

    Keppler, of course, is quite wrong. A planar filter causes ghosting,
    which is most noticeable when there are strong light sources in the
    picture. For an example, see the "UFO" picture (not my pic):

    [url]http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html[/url]

    The ghosting can be eliminated by using a Pentax "ghostless filter".
    It uses curved surfaces. But who has ever seen one of those? Another
    way to eliminate the ghosting is to remove the UV filter when ghosting
    is likely to be apparent.

    The best use of a UV filter is on a used lens that you are buying.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: UV or polarizer: I can only afford one right now


    "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnutiscali.nl> wrote in message
    news:bf69jp$dfm$3reader1.tiscali.nl...
    > Jim Phelps wrote:
    >
    > > Skylight and UV filters have a slightly bluish color to them. [...]
    >
    > ???
    > UV filters are absolutely clear, and Skylight filters have a slight
    pinkish
    > colour, the opposite of blue.
    >
    >
    >
    Damned rose colored glasses:~)

    I had on older Vivtar Skylight and using the paper test, it had a bluish
    cast. That was indoors, and the lighting (daylight fluorescents) may have
    given me the wrong color cast. It was also many years ago, and well, it's
    not always the eyes that go first. My apologies.

    The opposite of Blue is Yellow. The opposite if Cyan is Red. I guess we
    all have to start referring to the sunny Cyan skies;~)



    __________________________________________________ ____________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - [url]http://www.uncensored-news.com[/url]
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

    Jim Phelps Guest

Similar Threads

  1. wanted to buy 86C circular polarizer
    By Mike Allen in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 12:51 AM
  2. Sigma 15-30 EX and Polarizer Filter
    By Alan Dick in forum Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 22nd, 12:24 PM
  3. Coolpix 4500 and polarizer use?
    By Cliff in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 11th, 03:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139