FORUMS: list search recent posts

COATED vs UNCOATED UV Filters

COW Forums : Cinematography

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Peter Fuhrman
COATED vs UNCOATED UV Filters
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:40:31 pm

Hello,

I am researching UV filters and am finding out more than I bargained for. My research continues to support the notion that Coated is better than Uncoated, specifically as it relates to flare in the lens.

I'd like more insight if anyone here has experienced the benefits or advantages to using a coated over an uncoated UV filter.

I plan to purchase a UV CLEAR filter to simply protect the front element on the lens and DO NOT want any other effects from the filter.

Thank you for your time,
Peter


Return to posts index

Angelo Lorenzo
Re: COATED vs UNCOATED UV Filters
on Mar 21, 2012 at 3:59:29 am

Get a coated UV filter. It has been my experience that unless you're working with only modern lenses that employ multicoating, that you'll benefit from a coated filter. There is also no real downside to a coated filter other then you have to clean them more gently to reduce scratching or wearing the coating, and it can sometimes reduce transmission of light by a marginal difference (we're talking less than a tenth of a stop)

Uncoated glass usually comes in two flavors, the horribly cheap glass no one wants to use (think Hoya G series) and the more high end offerings from companies like Tiffen. Anything in the middle seems to all be subjected to a coating process.

Most motion picture filters are uncoated because they're used in conjunction with a mattebox that protects from flare issues. The only protective filter that is coated, that I can recall, is Schnider Optics' optical clear filter (this is not a UV filter in the sense that it's not designed to cut transmission of UV light).


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]