On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:06:15 -0800, tired.of.spam@nospam.com (Rudy Garcia) wrote:
>In article <36442dd9.10652642@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>ruether@fcinet.com wrote:

>
>> Hmmm, are there any modern lenses (which are likely to receive a UV
>> filter...) that will actually pass enough UV to show in the exposure
>> of normally-lighted subjects? Just wondering...
>

>Just because its glass doesn't mean it automatically stops UV. There are
>some VERY VERY expensive state of the art lenses in photolithographic
>equipment used for manufacturing integrated circuits that pass a large
>amount of UV. In fact, the light source is a deep UV source, to get
>around some of the difraction effects.

Yes, that is true (and very simple lenses on snap-shot cameras
can probably pass a fair amount of UV, too...), but I asked the
question within the context in which it is often stated that
a UV filter will reduce UV-caused haze in landscape-shooting...
I have not found that to be true, but was asking the question of
someone I thought may know the specifics of UV transmission with
average 35mm-format lenses... (I wouldn't mind having the quartz
UV-Nikkor lens - and I WOULD put a UV-stopping filter on THAT
one "to reduce haze" for non-UV shooting...! ;-)