Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/06/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Are UV Filters Needed for Proper Exposure on the Water? [was Re: [Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!]
From: r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard Taylor)
Date: Mon Jun 30 18:52:29 2008
References: <4AB109A52C71420B8131F60C014A7651@xyw> <C488B05D.13402%mark@rabinergroup.com> <000001c8d758$acc7d390$6b01a8c0@dadquad> <200806261300.m5QD0ZLY025689@server1.waverley.reid.org> <000a01c8d793$c8e69c60$6b01a8c0@dadquad> <a3f189160806260711n338528f9rf83953a619c53ce1@mail.gmail.com> <4B43510F-6837-4774-8797-3E9B4DA2C21D@comcast.net> <p0623091ac48976971657@[10.1.16.146]> <C7358AE5-D889-4252-9138-C2B220027497@comcast.net>

Yesterday I checked exposure with and without the UV filter I use on  
my lenses when shooting on the water.  The subject was a sailboat on  
Buzzards Bay on a bright but hazy day.  (The typical Buzzards Bay  
smokey southwester had filled in.)  This is a situation ripe with UV.

The exposure with and without the filter was the same to the accuracy  
I can measure it in Lightroom.  So, the Nikkor 70-200 mm, f2.8 zoom  
with 1.4 teleconverter does not need a UV filter to expose properly on  
my D300 as Henning had predicted.   Presumably, this is also true of  
other modern Nikkors.

Regards,

Dick



On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Richard Taylor wrote:

> I'm referring to modern Nikkors in this case.  I haven't tried it  
> with the Nikkors but my GRD2 underexposes by a a stop to a stop and  
> a half out on the water.   If I remember to do it, I'll try the  
> lenses with and without the filters to see if there is a difference  
> when I'm down on the Cape this weekend.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>> At 10:42 AM -0400 6/26/08, Richard Taylor wrote:
>>> Working from boats and at the seashore I find that a UV filter  
>>> reduces the tendency towards underexposure caused by all that open  
>>> sky.  It also keeps salty spray off the front element.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Under your shooting circumstances putting a protective filter on  
>> makes sense, as salt spray doesn't help any equipment, and can be a  
>> pain to get off.
>>
>> On the other hand on the topic of a UV filter reducing the tendency  
>> to overexposure: I don't believe you....if you are using a Leica  
>> lens produced in the last 30 years. All Leica lenses have a UV  
>> blocking function built in.
>>
>> -- 
>>  *            Henning J. Wulff
>> /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>> /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>> |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) (Are UV Filters Needed for Proper Exposure on the Water? [was Re: [Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!])
In reply to: Message from alal at duke.poly.edu (A. Lal) ([Leica] 21mm M Biogon question)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] 21mm M Biogon question)
Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] 21mm M Biogon question)
Message from marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispte!)
Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!)
Message from r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard Taylor) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!)
Message from r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard Taylor) ([Leica] Ah! Back to the Great Filter Dispute!)