"Jeremy" <jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message news:33tKa.12857$C83.1234967@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> x-no-archive: yes

>

> "John Miller" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:bdcai7$1us$1@n4vu.com...

> > After reading a few good but lengthy explanations, I'm wondering if it

> might

> > be easier to express the concept as: "While UV filters will often produce

> > photographs with less haze than those taken with a naked lens, haze that

> is

> > visible to the eye is unaffected."

> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but I wrote my lengthy response to

> explain why a UV or Skylight filter reduces haze. The original poster got

> inaccurate information from his dealer.

As you point out below, most modern lenses absorb so much UV, that

the UV-blocking effect of the added filter has no visible effect on the image...

> There are probably a significant percentage of people that read this NG that

> do not have a good grasp on how UV light can result in haze on the film.

> Our eyes can't see it, but film does.

But if it does not pass through the lens in sufficient amount to affect

the film image, the above is useless...

> I avoided discussing the fact that many types of coated lenses already

> filter out UV. It is also my understanding that the cement used to connect

> lens surfaces also absorbs UV, but I'm not up to speed on modern lenses and

> I don't know if many multi-element lenses even have cemented surfaces

> anymore, so the cement thing might be a moot point.

But the amount of glass isn't - and most lenses still have cemented

surfaces...

> While UV and other types of filters might be a high-margin item for the

> retailer, I still use them. I am one of those lens-cleaning nuts, and I

> would rather sacrifice an occasional filter than I would a lens. Many of my

> prime lenses are nearly 30 years old, and the front surfaces are as

> immaculate as they were the day I bought them, because they have always been

> covered by a UV or Skylight filter.

I agree with this - and a UV has saved a lens when grabbed by a

"nut" once...

> Sure, I know that the use of filters may reduce image quality, but I believe

> it to be a small price to pay to keep lens surfaces pristeen.

Rarely is there ANY effect on the image, positive or negative, with a

good-quality filter (which can be as cheap as a single-coated Hoya...).

> Just my opinion. Others may see it differently.

The above is fairly well established, but this "haze-cutting" thingy

continues. In the days of blue-sensitive film and 2-3 element lenses,

UV was an issue in the image, but not now for most conditions...