Do Filters Affect Your Image? article: Thank you very much sueyeisert for linking this article in another thread. I think the topic comes up so much that it deserves a thread of its...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Thank you very much sueyeisert for linking this article in another thread.

I think the topic comes up so much that it deserves a thread of its own.

http://photographylife.com/filters-affect-resolution-lenses#more-59816
....Judging from the above case, using a high quality filter does not affect the resolving power of the lens at all. This is a good scientific proof for those that claim that all protective filters decrease resolution. Myth debunked......

.....Looks like using a cheap filter does indeed affect lens resolution. There is about a 10% drop in resolving power across the frame........

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

if you make copies of VCR tape or music cassettes , or reel to reel by using the tape you just made to made to make the next copy . it won't be to long before you won't be able to see or hear what you recorded. it will be to degraded to know what is going on . now take your filters . if they are as good as some people think they are , you should be able to stack them for ever with out getting any distortion . even if there was a way to make them seamless . but I'm sure there would be distortion showing up fairly quick. just like recordings. there's even difference in a cheap camera
len's compared to a more more costly one . your filter glass is not any where near as good as a real cheap camera Len's. and the worst of the bunch are not even glass . think before you shoot . take that degrader of your camera

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

As usual your logic is false, based on incorrect assumptions and makes irrelevant comparisons.

Bram boy wrote:

if you make copies of VCR tape or music cassettes ... (show quote)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Bram boy wrote:

if you make copies of VCR tape or music cassettes ... (show quote)

Don't let the facts get in the way of your unsupported opinion. OF COURSE if you put a "stack" of filters on your lens it will degrade the image. In FACT one high-quality filter makes no discernible degradation.

If you have a gallon of white paint and you put in one drop of red, the effect will not be noticeable. If you put in a pint of red, it will be noticed. In the case of filters, one good filter makes no difference - if you stack ten of them you most likely will see some (or a lot) of degradation. I have saved two $2000.00 lenses by having two $100.00 filters give up their lives.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I have said this every time the question arose. A quality filter doesn't degrade an image. Sure glad Lighthose reposted this link and that the Captain agrees but the question will be asked again and opinions for and against will abound. ;)

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I was a "purest" until one day I had a 1/4" scratch on my 50mm f/1.4 lens that was my pride and joy and cost a weeks pay 40 yrs ago. Since then I've put filters on. - Dave

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

A photographer should use a filter intelligently. A protective filter usually makes no difference in foto IQ. But one needs to be educated enough to know when a filter may cause a problem, and simply remove it. Just like having a CPL permanently installed. Why? Use it when needed and then remove it. If you have a CPL always on your camera, its ecause you dont fully understand its funtion. If your worried about quality, don't use one. Its a personal decision, not a fad. If you need them, use them. If you don't feel you need one, don't use one. Let your fotos speak for you. The proof is in the pudding, not an article. SS

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

CaptainC wrote:

Don't let the facts get in the way of your unsuppo... (show quote)

I just said it degrades it , I did not say you would be able to see it . but it's still there . you can't see it but the testing they do can notice a discernible
degrading . as far as saving a camera from damage , they have caused more damage over all . sure they may have saved a few . but that's been looked into and it turns out your odds are better with out a len's cover . a len's hood
has saved more lenses than a filter ever could

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Bram boy wrote:

I just said it degrades it , I did not say you would be able to see it . but it's still there . you can't see it but the testing they do can notice a discernible
degrading . as far as saving a camera from damage , they have caused more damage over all . sure they may have saved a few . but that's been looked into and it turns out your odds are better with out a len's cover . a len's hood
has saved more lenses than a filter ever could

If you can't see it who cares. Perhaps you put your pictures under a microscope to if you can see something wrong. I like to look and see what the image looks like. You you tell us about the study that proves len's hoods have saved more lenses than protective filters? I would like to look that up but can't find it on the web. Perhaps JR1 could find it he is an expert at finding subjects. In my Not So Humble Opinion what your are saying is a bunch of BS. - Dave

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

CaptainC wrote:

Don't let the facts get in the way of your unsuppo... (show quote)

I agree with Cliff.

I have been right there with you for years...and had I not bought a filter and did my own head-to-head-pixel-peeping-200%-blowup comparison...and I posted it here on the 'hog I'd still be there with you.

But the results don't lie...It doesn't make a difference....now it MAY cause flare at some point, I don't know but straight image quality loss?

Naaa....

GW Loc: Idaho

I've always used filters on risky shots like around tiny probing fingers (bad example) , but anything for anyone else never, the customer deserves the best you and you equipment can produce....

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

GW wrote:

I've always used filters on risky shots like around tiny probing fingers (bad example) , but anything for anyone else never, the customer deserves the best you and you equipment can produce....

But I think that was the point of the thread, that the old wives tale that filters always degrade the glass just isn't true (as long as a good filter is used)

I did a head-to-head shoot out last week and found that there was no degradation that was noticeable...even in a very aggressive crop and then zoomed in at 200% magnification.

GW Loc: Idaho

rpavich wrote:

But I think that was the point of the thread, that the old wives tale that filters always degrade the glass just isn't true (as long as a good filter is used)

I did a head-to-head shoot out last week and found that there was no degradation that was noticeable...even in a very aggressive crop and then zoomed in at 200% magnification.

I think it is all dependant on the equipment quality...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

GW wrote:

I think it is all dependant on the equipment quality...

I guess that's a given.