uv or skylight at DVinfo.net

Michael Buendia · December 25th, 2002, 08:18 PM

what would you recommend: a uv filter or a skylight for pure protection on the gl2 lens?

Jeff Donald · December 25th, 2002, 09:11 PM

It really makes no difference for video. If you put it on your lens and leave it on for protection, you'll be (or the camera will be) white balancing through the filter. This will compensate for the slight magenta cast of the skylight filter. Skylight filters are designed to filter out excess UV (blue cast) on film. This is accomplished by tinting the skylight filter slightly magenta. The magenta is neutralized by your cameras auto white balancing (AWB).

Jeff

Frank Granovski · December 25th, 2002, 09:24 PM

A UV might cost less. I'd just get a UV to protect the lens, and a polarizer to cut glare on sunny days. A softening filter is also nice to have.

A Cokin UV is like 10 to 15 bucks. That's my favourite UV. My expensive Heliopan UV suffers from glare. $65 Canadian Bucks down the tube.

Don Palomaki · December 26th, 2002, 05:39 AM

Be aware that in part to the great depth of field potentiql of the GLx series, you may encounter shooting situations where you can actually see the dust on the filter in the image. So keep any filter clean.

Mark Härtl · December 26th, 2002, 05:59 AM

can i use a uv- and pol-filter at the same time? or do i need a mattebox for this? what about a wideangle-converter or the lens-hood (what i want to ask is can you screw other things on a filter)?

Jeff Donald · December 26th, 2002, 06:37 AM

It depends on the filter. Most are made with threads at both ends. This allows for attaching filters, hoods and other accessories. However, many of the filters marketed as suitable for wide angle lenses employ a thinner mounting ring. The thinner ring prevents (in most cases) the filter from protruding into the scene. This protruding, by normal filters, produces a condition know as vignetting. Vignetting is seen as a moderate to severe darkening of the corners of your image. The thinner mounting ring, in many cases, does not have a threaded outer portion. The lack of threads prevent the attaching of additional accessories, including other filters.

Jeff

Frank Granovski · December 26th, 2002, 06:51 AM

The slim line B+W / Heliopan does have the outer threads.

* The Cokin UV has less reflective coating(s) than the Heliopan. This is probably why I get the refections with the Heliopan, but not with the Cokin.

Frank Granovski · December 26th, 2002, 06:57 AM

Polarizers are usually also UV. (At least some polarizers are.)

I'd try to avoid using more than 1 filter at a time. With more glass the image is going to be less clear.

Then there is the matter of linear verses circular polarizers.

Some ND filters are also polarizers, yet others are are both polarizers and softeners.

It's a big filter world out there. I'd just stick with a UV and a polarizer to start.

Mark Härtl · December 26th, 2002, 04:11 PM

thanks jeff & frank, you've helped me a lot - as always. good for my knowledge; am just getting into these things...

Charles Papert · December 26th, 2002, 06:48 PM

Frank:

I am truly surprised to hear that a top-end company like B&W is producing a filter that causes more flare issues than a cheaper filter. Especially, as you say, one that has more coatings designed to reduce this...! For instance, in a really difficult situation like shooting scenes by candlelight, does the Cokin produce less secondary images of the candles than the Heliopan?

Also I am curious about your description of combination filters that combine Polarizers with ND or image softening effects. The only variations I have seen in Polas are linear vs circular and an 812 warming filter+pola sandwich. Which manufacturer is making these other combos you describe?

Frank Granovski · December 28th, 2002, 08:06 PM

The UV which causes flaring on my MX300 is the Heliopan. I kid you not. So I bought a Cokin UV, and found it caused no flaring. So..., I think it's always a good idea to try an expensive filter in the shop first before learning the hard way. Expensive doesn't mean better, in this case. Or, maybe I got a defective Heliopan UV?

About combos, I'll look through my filter catalogs to tell you which one.

Jeff Donald · December 28th, 2002, 09:53 PM

I've used Heliopans off and on for 15 years and never had a problem with flair. I would suggest that you have a defective filter. Of course getting the Germans to admit it will be another thing. I wonder if the glass element is not held by the mounting ring properly. I would send it to Heliopan with a video sample of the flair and see what they say.

Jeff

Don Palomaki · December 29th, 2002, 06:48 AM

> My expensive Heliopan UV suffers from glare.

Where did you buy the bad heliopan? At $65 vs. $12, some one could have swapped the glass and returned it for a refund and net gain of $51.

Frank Granovski · December 29th, 2002, 06:34 PM

I bought it at Leo's, in Vancouver. I'm sure the glass was not switched. Also, the filter is screwed in correctly. Perhaps the coatings cause the light to flare.

At first I wanted to buy a Leica UV, but the Leica threads are different and only fit Leica cams or certain Leica cams. Go figure. I'm happy with my Cokin. It's even made will real glass.

Jeff Donald · December 29th, 2002, 07:01 PM

I'm sure you have the filter screwed in correctly. What I was suggesting is, the glass element is not parallel to the lenses because the element is not seated in the mounting ring properly. It could have been caused by the spanner ring not being tight enough or even too tight. It's possible the element wasn't coated properly, but I think that is highly unlikely.

The coatings to the glass element (both surfaces) are anti reflective coatings and are designed to reduce flair.

Jeff

December 25th, 2002, 08:18 PM	#1
Michael Buendia Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: los angeles, california Posts: 71	uv or skylight what would you recommend: a uv filter or a skylight for pure protection on the gl2 lens?

December 26th, 2002, 05:59 AM	#5
Mark Härtl Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 54	can i use a uv- and pol-filter at the same time? or do i need a mattebox for this? what about a wideangle-converter or the lens-hood (what i want to ask is can you screw other things on a filter)? __________________ Mark

December 26th, 2002, 04:11 PM	#9
Mark Härtl Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 54	thanks jeff & frank, you've helped me a lot - as always. good for my knowledge; am just getting into these things... __________________ Mark

December 26th, 2002, 06:48 PM	#10
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Frank: I am truly surprised to hear that a top-end company like B&W is producing a filter that causes more flare issues than a cheaper filter. Especially, as you say, one that has more coatings designed to reduce this...! For instance, in a really difficult situation like shooting scenes by candlelight, does the Cokin produce less secondary images of the candles than the Heliopan? Also I am curious about your description of combination filters that combine Polarizers with ND or image softening effects. The only variations I have seen in Polas are linear vs circular and an 812 warming filter+pola sandwich. Which manufacturer is making these other combos you describe? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 25th, 2002, 09:11 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	It really makes no difference for video. If you put it on your lens and leave it on for protection, you'll be (or the camera will be) white balancing through the filter. This will compensate for the slight magenta cast of the skylight filter. Skylight filters are designed to filter out excess UV (blue cast) on film. This is accomplished by tinting the skylight filter slightly magenta. The magenta is neutralized by your cameras auto white balancing (AWB). Jeff

December 25th, 2002, 09:24 PM	#3
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	A UV might cost less. I'd just get a UV to protect the lens, and a polarizer to cut glare on sunny days. A softening filter is also nice to have. A Cokin UV is like 10 to 15 bucks. That's my favourite UV. My expensive Heliopan UV suffers from glare. $65 Canadian Bucks down the tube.

December 26th, 2002, 05:39 AM	#4
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	Be aware that in part to the great depth of field potentiql of the GLx series, you may encounter shooting situations where you can actually see the dust on the filter in the image. So keep any filter clean.

December 26th, 2002, 06:37 AM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	It depends on the filter. Most are made with threads at both ends. This allows for attaching filters, hoods and other accessories. However, many of the filters marketed as suitable for wide angle lenses employ a thinner mounting ring. The thinner ring prevents (in most cases) the filter from protruding into the scene. This protruding, by normal filters, produces a condition know as vignetting. Vignetting is seen as a moderate to severe darkening of the corners of your image. The thinner mounting ring, in many cases, does not have a threaded outer portion. The lack of threads prevent the attaching of additional accessories, including other filters. Jeff

December 26th, 2002, 06:51 AM	#7
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The slim line B+W / Heliopan does have the outer threads. * The Cokin UV has less reflective coating(s) than the Heliopan. This is probably why I get the refections with the Heliopan, but not with the Cokin.

December 26th, 2002, 06:57 AM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Polarizers are usually also UV. (At least some polarizers are.) I'd try to avoid using more than 1 filter at a time. With more glass the image is going to be less clear. Then there is the matter of linear verses circular polarizers. Some ND filters are also polarizers, yet others are are both polarizers and softeners. It's a big filter world out there. I'd just stick with a UV and a polarizer to start.

December 28th, 2002, 08:06 PM	#11
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The UV which causes flaring on my MX300 is the Heliopan. I kid you not. So I bought a Cokin UV, and found it caused no flaring. So..., I think it's always a good idea to try an expensive filter in the shop first before learning the hard way. Expensive doesn't mean better, in this case. Or, maybe I got a defective Heliopan UV? About combos, I'll look through my filter catalogs to tell you which one.

December 28th, 2002, 09:53 PM	#12
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I've used Heliopans off and on for 15 years and never had a problem with flair. I would suggest that you have a defective filter. Of course getting the Germans to admit it will be another thing. I wonder if the glass element is not held by the mounting ring properly. I would send it to Heliopan with a video sample of the flair and see what they say. Jeff

December 29th, 2002, 06:48 AM	#13
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	> My expensive Heliopan UV suffers from glare. Where did you buy the bad heliopan? At $65 vs. $12, some one could have swapped the glass and returned it for a refund and net gain of $51.

December 29th, 2002, 06:34 PM	#14
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I bought it at Leo's, in Vancouver. I'm sure the glass was not switched. Also, the filter is screwed in correctly. Perhaps the coatings cause the light to flare. At first I wanted to buy a Leica UV, but the Leica threads are different and only fit Leica cams or certain Leica cams. Go figure. I'm happy with my Cokin. It's even made will real glass.

December 29th, 2002, 07:01 PM	#15
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I'm sure you have the filter screwed in correctly. What I was suggesting is, the glass element is not parallel to the lenses because the element is not seated in the mounting ring properly. It could have been caused by the spanner ring not being tight enough or even too tight. It's possible the element wasn't coated properly, but I think that is highly unlikely. The coatings to the glass element (both surfaces) are anti reflective coatings and are designed to reduce flair. Jeff