See how much can a cheap filter degrade you photo
May 22, 2013 17:22:52 #
I was trying to find the "sweet spot" in my new to me Sigma 400 lens. When I realized I had not taken the Sunpak UV filter off. So I took the filter off and shot a couple more. Since the camera was not on a tripod it was resting on a window sill, I wouldn't take this as a definitive test. But from what I am seeing that Sunpak will not be back on this lens any time soon.
No sharpening or adjustments were done on these other than cropping. in the cropped versions. The focus according to my camera was right between his eyes.
No sharpening or adjustments were done on these other than cropping. in the cropped versions. The focus according to my camera was right between his eyes.
Filter
Filter
No Filter
No Filter
May 22, 2013 17:30:14 #
Country's Mama wrote:
I was trying to find the "sweet spot" in... (show quote)
That's why I never use the UV or "Skylight" filter. It's either a CPL or Tulip Hood. They both protect the lens and can improve the image.
May 22, 2013 17:36:36 #
I've never understood why anyone would spend thousands on a lens and then be content to add a cheap filter. Canon doesn't make filters. Their engineers have spent fortunes in research to get the best out of the elements they have employed but some appear to know better. If it's there for protection then use your lens cap but in my opinion, nothing should cover the objective lens when a picture is taken. ND filters or color filters have very different applications but UV or clear have no use what so ever.
May 22, 2013 17:48:57 #
Joe F.N. wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would spend thous... (show quote)
UV's do provide protection. If a nature photographer, consider a swinging branch, or sea spray or sand hitting your lens.
May 22, 2013 17:53:18 #
Joe F.N. wrote:
I've never understood why anyone would spend thous... (show quote)
Not true. Canon does in fact make filters.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=112&N=4077634527+4291570227
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=115&N=4077634526+4291570227
May 22, 2013 18:03:08 #
BrettOssman wrote:
UV's do provide protection. If a nature photographer, consider a swinging branch, or sea spray or sand hitting your lens.
But after seeing the guys at Digital Rev TV (Kai) destroy the front of a lens and then take shots that were just fine; i.e. no scratches showed up at all...I'm inclined to leave the filters off. If I have to clean a front element...I will.
May 22, 2013 18:09:32 #
Country's Mama wrote:
I was trying to find the "sweet spot" in... (show quote)
Good info. Thanks for posting.
May 22, 2013 18:13:09 #
rpavich wrote:
But after seeing the guys at Digital Rev TV (Kai) destroy the front of a lens and then take shots that were just fine; i.e. no scratches showed up at all...I'm inclined to leave the filters off. If I have to clean a front element...I will.
Actually, I can see that. May be the same concept as getting as close as you can to a fence or cage at a zoo. Takes it right out of the shot, because it can't focus on something that close. :thumbup:
May 22, 2013 18:54:54 #
Can see the difference with kitty. Used to use them in the 'old days'. On digital cameras-no way-don't even own one anymore.
May 22, 2013 19:04:15 #
mikeyatc wrote:
I stand corrected. I still wouldn't use them.
May 22, 2013 19:08:39 #
BrettOssman wrote:
UV's do provide protection. If a nature photographer, consider a swinging branch, or sea spray or sand hitting your lens.
I am a nature photographer and have been for decades. All of my lenses are of the 'L' type persuasion so I should be concerned but I'm not. A good point was made about using them in film days but they really aren't required in the digital age. To each his/her own.
May 22, 2013 19:17:38 #
IF I need a filter, IE Lens shade gets in the way, I will use a quality clear glass filter.
I no longer own a UV filter or sky light filter (for digital use)
That said, in the past ( army years) I had been using a SRT Minolta, I was running to catch a ride (Deuce and a half) and the front element hit the foot bar of the truck (tailgate was up) SMASHED the UV filter on my 135mm glass.
zero damage to the lens. The lens cap was in my pocket as I was shooting images when my ride decided to hat up.
While 35mm gear begs for filters for front group protection. Digitals using lens shades simply do not need UV or skylight filters.
IMHO
I no longer own a UV filter or sky light filter (for digital use)
That said, in the past ( army years) I had been using a SRT Minolta, I was running to catch a ride (Deuce and a half) and the front element hit the foot bar of the truck (tailgate was up) SMASHED the UV filter on my 135mm glass.
zero damage to the lens. The lens cap was in my pocket as I was shooting images when my ride decided to hat up.
While 35mm gear begs for filters for front group protection. Digitals using lens shades simply do not need UV or skylight filters.
IMHO
May 22, 2013 19:17:44 #
Country Mama has the perfect illustration on this subject!
IF I need a filter, IE Lens shade gets in the way, I will use a quality clear glass filter.
I no longer own a UV filter or sky light filter (for digital use)
That said, in the past ( army years) I had been using a SRT Minolta, I was running to catch a ride (Deuce and a half) and the front element hit the foot bar of the truck (tailgate was up) SMASHED the UV filter on my 135mm glass.
zero damage to the lens. The lens cap was in my pocket as I was shooting images when my ride decided to hat up.
While 35mm gear begs for filters for front group protection. Digitals using lens shades simply do not need UV or skylight filters.
IMHO
IF I need a filter, IE Lens shade gets in the way, I will use a quality clear glass filter.
I no longer own a UV filter or sky light filter (for digital use)
That said, in the past ( army years) I had been using a SRT Minolta, I was running to catch a ride (Deuce and a half) and the front element hit the foot bar of the truck (tailgate was up) SMASHED the UV filter on my 135mm glass.
zero damage to the lens. The lens cap was in my pocket as I was shooting images when my ride decided to hat up.
While 35mm gear begs for filters for front group protection. Digitals using lens shades simply do not need UV or skylight filters.
IMHO
May 22, 2013 19:18:14 #
Thanks for sharing your test results. That is quite a difference. I wonder if a higher quality filter would have better results. I guess I'll have to run my own tests.
May 22, 2013 19:30:21 #
Huge difference - thank you for sharing your test Country Mama! There will still times in precarious situations, when I need to keep the UV filter on to protect the lens from myself, but from here on out the filter will be off, especially portraits and close ups. Thanks!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.