Haze filters - Anyone have any thoughts?

[djrichie28]

Was just looking into these Haze filters and wondering if they are worth looking into? From what I have found already, they appear to work similar to CP filters. If anyone has some thoughts, please share them. Thanks.

 

[250Gimp]

I believe that a haze filter works very similarily to a UV filter.

A polarizer is a different animal all together, in that it reduces glare.

 

[Mike_E]

Do you have a link? I have heard CPs called haze filters and UV filters called haze filters as well.

Usually 'haze' refers to a UV filter.

Also note that digital cameras have both UV and infra-red filters built in and the UV filters used are mainly to protect the front element of the lens.

 

[Alfred D.]

UV filters (a.k.a. haze filters) are useful when there is excess UV light to be filtered.
UV filters (a.k.a. haze filters) are useless when there is NO excess UV light to be filtered!
Worse: they compromise image quality unneccessarily (increased flare, focal softness, chromatic aberration).

So when is there excess UV light that needs filtering? That is 1) at altitude (say, over 3,000 feet), 2) in the desert or savannah, 3) at the beach, 4) at sea, or 5) in snowscapes.
If you're not in any of these circumstances don't use a UV filter (a.k.a. haze filter), because it won't enhance the image, but instead deteriorate it.

 

[AndrewG]

UV filters (a.k.a. haze filters) are useful when there is excess UV light to be filtered.
UV filters (a.k.a. haze filters) are useless when there is NO excess UV light to be filtered!
Worse: they compromise image quality unneccessarily (increased flare, focal softness, chromatic aberration).

So when is there excess UV light that needs filtering? That is 1) at altitude (say, over 3,000 feet), 2) in the desert or savannah, 3) at the beach, 4) at sea, or 5) in snowscapes.
If you're not in any of these circumstances don't use a UV filter (a.k.a. haze filter), because it won't enhance the image, but instead deteriorate it.

Hmm; haze (UV) filters work very well at cutting through-haze. Flare is easily avoided with a lens hood which you should use in any situation where flare might be a problem, and if you use good quality filters there should be no problem with image degradation at all. I've been using haze/skylight/UV filters on all my lenses (Nikkor Ai) for years with no issues whatsoever.

 

[Alfred D.]

1) Try 'with' and 'without' (on careful, quality tripod shots), and compare side-by-side on-screen. The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the eating, no?
2) "for years"? Maybe it's time for an eye check at an optician's... Eyes deteriorate over time, you know.

 

[christopher walrath]

Haze filtration is simple for black and white for those of you interested. (I mention this 'cause it ain't been talk of yet.)

For atmospheric haze, the light that is reflecting from the atmospheric moisture must be taken into account. Blue light of midday, red filter to reduce atmospheric haze around this time. Reddish light of the golden hour, blue filter to reduce haze at this time.

I say atmospheric haze because haze due to airborn particles such as dust, ash, etc. cannot be affected through the use of filtration.

 

[Joves]

I mostly use clear glass lenses as protection of my lenses. The UV/Haze/Skylight filters are not the same as a polarizer. I have a Circualr Polizer and a B Polarizer or, blue blocking polarizer. The B works great for some areas here in Arizona, like the painted desert.

 

[Garbz]

1) Try 'with' and 'without' (on careful, quality tripod shots), and compare side-by-side on-screen. The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the eating, no?
2) "for years"? Maybe it's time for an eye check at an optician's... Eyes deteriorate over time, you know.

Been there, done that, used good quality lens, compared at 100% and posted results online. Bottom line is if you have a decent filter and you're not shooting into the sun there's no degradation (how can one get CA if the filter doesn't bend the light). If you have a cheap filter you deserve everything you get.

Interestingly I found polarisers actually do wonders in cutting through haze. It's no silver bullet but it helps. The UV filters on the other hand are quite useless at cutting through haze unless for anything other than lens protection unless you find yourself in the situations Alfred mentioned above.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

How can one get CA if the filter doesn't bend the light? If you have a cheap filter you deserve everything you get.

Unless the incident light rays strike the flat glass exactly perpendicular (normal) to the surface, they are refracted toward the normal as they enter the glass and away from the normal as they exit the other side of the glass into the air. For a thin pane with perfectly parallel faces, the effect should be small.

I occasionally notice more flare with the single-coated Canon filter than with a better quality multi-coated filter.

 

[Alfred D.]

Interestingly I found polarisers actually do wonders in cutting through haze. It's no silver bullet but it helps. The UV filters on the other hand are quite useless at cutting through haze unless for anything other than lens protection unless you find yourself in the situations Alfred mentioned above.

Any glass filter cuts UV light! Ever gotten a tan behind glass? A CP is two glass filters! You can take it for granted that it cuts 99,999% of UV light...
Often confused with haze, of course. Haze is stuff in the air. Usually water. A light mist. Gazillions of minuscule little droplets of water floating in the air and reflecting light. Or a haze can be caused by sand, dust, in the air too. Filters don't do much for those kinds of haze.

So that's another reason not to stack a UV filter on a CP filter, or v.v. It's useless. It doesn't add anything the CP isn't already doing. And a lot better too.

 

[Helen B]

Any glass filter cuts UV light! Ever gotten a tan behind glass? A CP is two glass filters! You can take it for granted that it cuts 99,999% of UV light...
Often confused with haze, of course. Haze is stuff in the air. Usually water. A light mist. Gazillions of minuscule little droplets of water floating in the air and reflecting light. Or a haze can be caused by sand, dust, in the air too. Filters don't do much for those kinds of haze.

So that's another reason not to stack a UV filter on a CP filter, or v.v. It's useless. It doesn't add anything the CP isn't already doing. And a lot better too.

The glass used for lenses and filters passes ultraviolet radiation* at the long end of the UV spectrum, which is why glass has to be specially treated to absorb at all UV wavelengths. There is no reason for polarizing filters to be made with such glass: in fact some manufacturers, such as B+W/Schneider, have published the specification for the glass they use, and it isn't special UV-absorbing glass. Glass is not, however, the only component in a polarizing filter. The polarizing foil may be much better at cutting UV than glass is. Kaesemann P-Zirk-N foil, an eample of a CP foil, is a very good absorber of UV.

'Haze' seems to be a very loosely-defined term. A filter can do little for obscuration caused by particulate matter in the air, but it can do something about the light scattered by particulate matter and by the air itself - because that scattered light usually has certain properties. If it is scattered skylight, it has some of the properties of skylight. Even the process of scattering can it certain properties relative to wavelength and polarization - though this effect may be slight.

*Strictly speaking ultraviolet isn't 'light', but it's probably not an important distinction except for those who strive for some degree of accuracy.

Best,
Helen

 

[Garbz]

I occasionally notice more flare with the single-coated Canon filter than with a better quality multi-coated filter.

Well that's a given really, but flare and CA are caused by two different things. I still believe that CA would be impossible to get through a parallel pane, I'll see what my photonics lecturer says about this on wed. Mind you in theory a perfectly parallel pane doesn't exist, but the point is I have never noticed any CA effect caused by the addition of a filter, other than a soft focus filter (which depending on the type isn't flat).

Any glass filter cuts UV light! Ever gotten a tan behind glass? A CP is two glass filters! You can take it for granted that it cuts 99,999% of UV light...
Often confused with haze, of course. Haze is stuff in the air. Usually water. A light mist. Gazillions of minuscule little droplets of water floating in the air and reflecting light. Or a haze can be caused by sand, dust, in the air too. Filters don't do much for those kinds of haze.

Ok so let me be very specific so that this can in no way possible be taken in the wrong way.
I have found a polariser to be good at cutting though haze [red] only when rotated in a certain position [/red] My observation had nothing to do with the fact that the polariser also may cut UV light depending on how it is made.

Also I will say with 100% certainty that all glass does most definitely NOT block UV light. Your car window may, but then if its like mine it has a sticker in the bottom corner that says it was designed to.

The circular polariser used on cameras also has a quarter wave plate on the other side. I am well aware of how they are made.

 

[Helen B]

... I still believe that CA would be impossible to get through a parallel pane,...

It's usually entirely insignificant for filters that are in front of the lens, but it is possible. Rays passing through a parallel piece of glass are displaced along the axis. The amount of displacement varies with wavelength (because the refractive index varies with wavelength) and with angle. This affects wide aperture lenses as well as wide angle lenses. In normal use, when a typical filter is in front of a lens and the distance to the object is very large in comparison to a third of the filter thickness (the approximate optical displacement caused by the filter along the axis) the effect can be completely ignored and anyone who understands the issue is unlikely to suggest that CA has any practical significance in this situation.

When a thick filter or beam splitter is used behind the lens, the image displacement may be significant*. The difference in image displacement with wavelength may also be significant, but usually less so.

*That is why thin polyester or gelatin filters are used behind the lens when the lens design does not take the filter into account, and why it is best to focus through the filtered lens and not by scale when a thick filter is in use behind the lens.

Best,
Helen

 

[Garbz]

Yes but does it still happen at perpendicular incidence to the plane? My thought was that the displacement would only happen if the ray hits the glass at an angle (in which case flare is what to worry about as this light won't contribute to the image directly without bouncing around the glass surfaces a bit)?